Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

INVERCLYDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Inverclyde district council; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

SOLICITORS IN THE SUPREME COURTS OF SCOTLAND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

European Community (Transport Ministers)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans next to have an official meeting with his opposite numbers in the EEC Council of Transport Ministers.

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet his ministerial colleagues in the EEC.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): At the next Transport Council on 20 February.

Mr. Dykes: There are still lingering doubts and anxieties since the last transport Question Time. Will the Minister make it clear to his transport colleagues in the EEC that there is no confidential departmental plan to increase maximum lorry weights, by stealth or other means?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall make that clear to my colleagues in the Council. The House fully understands the position, and there is a later Question on this matter.

Mr. Arnold: In advance of the Secretary of State's meeting, and in view of what is contained in the Commission draft directive, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in principle, he is in favour of a double standard set of specifications for heavy vehicles within the Community?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not entirely understand what the hon. Gentleman means about double standards. My primary concern is that the weights of lorries operating in this country are not increased. This was discussed in conjunction with dimensions, at the last Council meeting. I recognise that there is a difference. I am not prepared to see any movement with regard to weights. Dimensions must be considered together with weights.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: When my right hon. Friend meets his counterparts, will


he make it plain to them that the British public are not prepared to accept heavier lorries by the simple expedient of adding two more axles? Will he confirm that the Road Research Laboratory recently concluded that the main damage caused by heavy lorries is from vibration noise, which would not be reduced by adding any number of axles?

Mr. Rodgers: I entirely agree that the objection to heavy lorries goes much wider than the axle weight and the damage that they do to the road. It is a difficult matter. Recent circumstances have made it clear how dependent we are, for better or worse, on heavy goods vehicles. We must strike a balance between the needs of the environment, which are paramount in the case of weights, and the important contribution that the road haulage industry makes to the British economy.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: When my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues, will he raise the question of assistance to waterways and to the lighterage industry? The present arrangements may be satisfactory to some other members of the European Community, but we are not benefiting from this assistance as much as we should.

Mr. Rodgers: For largely geographical reasons waterways are not as significant in the United Kingdom as they are on the Continent of Europe. I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the future of the River Thames as a waterway, and I shall certainly bear his remarks in mind.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that regardless of their weight, lorries cannot operate if the roads are not kept clear? Many EEC lorries are coming into East Anglia from the ports, but we are short of salt and cannot keep the roads clear. It is indispensable that the Government should procure from the docks supplies of salt for the county councils to enable lorries to run on our roads.

Mr. Rodgers: I entirely agree that supplies of salt are essential to maintain the safety of our roads. If the county council that the hon. Gentleman has in mind has a specific and immediate problem, I hope that he will let me know, and we shall do all that we can to help.

British Railways

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet the chairman of British Railways.

Mr. William Rodgers: Later today.

Mr. Smith: Will the Secretary of State impress upon the chairman of the British Railways Board the need to ensure that any productivity scheme agreed as a result of any settlement is genuine, otherwise how will we avoid a further increase in fares this year and a consequent loss in passenger traffic? Is it not about time that the British Railways Board took a rather firmer line in this dispute, with a view to ending this series of damaging strikes as soon as possible?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that I need impress the first point upon the chairman, because he is fully aware of the need for any productivity to be wholly genuine. I think that the initiative that has lately been taken by the Board, although it has, alas, run into the sand, was very much in this direction. As to being firm, I only wish that firmness was the simple answer to a highly complex, damaging and frustrating dispute which makes no sense at all to most of us.

Mr. Canavan: In order to help the British Railways Board and the trade unions again to get round the table, will my right hon. Friend tell Sir Peter Parker that the Government's wages policy will not stand in the way of any settlement agreed between the Board and all three unions? Would not this be a more helpful approach than the destructive, trade union bashing tactics of some Tories, who do not seem to realise the value of the service normally provided by railways workers until such time as that service is withdrawn, such as during the recent strikes?

Mr. Rodgers: Even if I were prepared to make my hon. Friend's point to the chairman, I am afraid that it would not be relevant in this circumstance, because the present dispute has nothing whatever to do with the Government's pay policy.


It is a long-standing one about differentials on the railways, and between two principal trade unions. But, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, a dispute of this kind shows how much we depend upon the railways. I very much regret that their future, which we hoped we were making secure, is a great deal less secure as a result of this damaging dispute.

Mr. Norman Fowler: In his talks with the chairman, will the Secretary of State make two points? First, that the public, particularly the commuters, are sick to death of the disruption caused to their lives by these strikes and are angered at the way in which they have hardened into an inter-union dispute. Secondly, will he ask the chairman to point out to all those concerned that if the loss from these strikes, which by the end of this week will have cost British Rail between £12 million and £15 million, is not to fall on the passengers or the taxpayer, the only alternative is to find further manpower reductions within the railway industry? Surely to goodness that is not what the unions concerned want.

Mr. Rodgers: I think that the public are fed up to the back teeth with this dispute, and rightly. I refer not only to commuters in the London area but to those who use our trains throughout the country. It would be ridiculous were it not tragic, but it is tragic. For that reason I hope very much that this dispute will be solved. There is no question of the Government bailing out the railway industry. This is a problem that it must solve. If, as a result, it loses passengers, that will cast doubt upon the future of the railways and make it far more difficult for any Government to invest seriously in them and regard them as having a central and stable future in our transport system.

Mr. Buchanan: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that since September last year one union, and one union only—the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—has been responsible for the disruption of commuter services in the South of England and, latterly, of services throughout Great Britain? When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, I hope that he will discuss the future of British Rail, because, from my right hon.

Friend's public statements, as well as the statements of the Chairman of the British Railways Board, I know that they want to take British Rail into the twenty-first century with a viable, modern, electrified railway system. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the damage which the strikes have done to the future prospects of British Rail? Will he do his best to get ASLEF to stop fighting to remain in the nineteenth century?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's assessment. The present dispute is between one union only, which represents a minority of railwaymen, and the British Railways Board, but all railwaymen are the victims of it. I hope that something can be rescued and that we shall again be able to nut things back on to a stable footing. But it is not easy, and we must all continue to use our very best endeavours and accept our responsibility in this matter.

Mr. Adley: Is not the job of Sir Peter Parker being made almost impossible? Is it not impossible to run the railways properly unless there is co-operation between ASLEF and the NUR? If that does not come about, does the right hon. Gentleman foresee any role for himself in trying to bring it about? Does he agree that if we cannot bring about a merger between ASLEF and the NUR, eventually there will have to be a takeover, one of the other, and that it is certain which way that will go?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not want to get involved in the question of the future of the unions concerned. This is a very long story. It is only fair to say that, given the contraction of manpower on the railways over the years, perhaps it was inevitable, in an industry where there are many craft grades and strong traditions, that problems of this kind would persist. The tragedy is that they have not been overcome. I had two long sessions with the chairman, his chief industrial negotiator and the three unions last week. I succeeded in getting them around the table again, and I am prepared to take any further personal steps if I really believe that progress will result.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that we shall come back to this issue on the next two Questions.

ASLEF

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to meet the general secretary of ASLEF.

Mr. William Rodgers: Soon.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sorry for the right hon. Gentleman. When he next meets ASLEF, will he draw to its attention the leader in The Guardian last Monday, which is not a trade union bashing, Right-wing paper, headed "Off the Rails and Heading for Collision"? Does he agree with the theme of that leader, that it is time that this inter-union dispute brought some penalty to the unions and their members, rather than just to the public? Is it not time that the union leaders and their members paid the price, rather than just the travellers?

Mr. Rodgers: For a long time I have hesitated to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps I would prefer to agree with The Guardian leader which he quoted. I think that it set out very fairly the difficult problems involved. But there is no easy solution. I only wish there were. We must recognise that the vast majority of railwaymen are serious and hardworking, want to make a, success of their jobs and want to make our railway system one of the most efficient in the world. That, again, is a measure of the difficulties at the present time.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in that moderate article the penalisation suggested was to apply only to the NUR? Is not the problem one of the erosion of differentials, reduced manpower, increased productivity and the breaking last year of the 1974 consolidation of bonus agreements?

Mr. Rodgers: As I think my hon. Friend implied, in some ways the problems on the railways are a microcosm of our larger problems. On the one hand, there are those who want to maintain, and even widen, differentials, and on the other there are those who primarily want to be concerned with the lower paid. To find an accommodation between these two concerns is a, matter not only for the railways but for the country at large.

Mr. Stephen Ross: When he next meets the general secretary of ASLEF, will the right hon. Gentleman implore him to

remember the long-suffering customers of the railways, to whom this action is causing great distress, and also those who have had to find alternative ways to work in the last few days in quite dreadful conditions, which in some cases has resulted in injuries or even death? Does not that play on the conscience of the general secretary and his colleagues in ASLEF and bring it home to them that they ought to call off this dispute, and the sooner the better?

Mr. Rodgers: I believe that there will be widespread sympathy for the way in which the hon. Gentleman put the matter. Certainly those who use the railways and rely upon them are gravely inconvenienced at the present time. I believe that everyone must examine not only his conscience but his sense of purpose and really consider what merit there is in, and what outcome there will be from, a continuation of the dispute.

Mr. Temple-Morris: When the Secretary of State sees the general secretary, will he echo, and echo strongly, the words of Sir Peter Parker, that it is an absolute tragedy that the dispute should strike the railways at the very time when they could be showing their strength? Will he go further and inform the general secretary strongly that the future of his own union is very much on the line at present? Will the Secretary of State show a little more leadership in assessing the structure of the unions in British Rail?

Mr. Rodgers: With regard to the third point, I do not think that that is my responsibility, or that I would carry it out very well if I accepted it. However, I believe that there are some very important issues here, less for Ministers and perhaps more for the Trades Union Congress. Mr. Len Murray has been playing a most constructive and patient part in trying to find a solution. But the matter raises much larger issues of trade union structure and the extent to which there is competition where there should not be.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Could not the current dispute have been avoided if ASLEF and the Board had not rejected a decision of the Railway Staff National Tribunal last year, which made recommendations which were entirely accepted by 90 per cent. of the work force, who


cannot be criticised for wishing to insist on the arbitration judgment of Lord McCarthy?

Mr. Rodgers: I can think of one hundred and one ways in which the present dispute could have been avoided. I do not think that anyone is completely free of some degree of responsibility for the present degree of intransigence. I say that in no sense to exacerbate a difficult situation. We must now hope that the efforts being made at this very moment will bear some fruit.

British Railways (Investment)

Mr Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will authorise increased investment for British Railways.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): The Government have so far been able to maintain a substantial provision for investment in renewing and improving the railway but this will have to be kept under review in the light of the business performance.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government should not freeze investment in British Rail to £312 million, when the International Railway Journal reports that there is an 18 per cent. increase in expenditure in world railways outside the Communist bloc and the United States, and that in America alone £2·5 billion is being spent on the railways? Even the Italian investment in the railways, whose network is much smaller than ours, is far higher than ours. What is my hon. Friend prepared to do about that?

Mr. Horam: The figure of rather over £300 million as a ceiling for investment for the railways is a very large sum in any circumstances. We have maintained it over the past few years and intend to maintain it over the next few years. We have made a positive approach to railway investment, but, in the final analysis, as Sir Peter Parker himself said recently, it depends on the performance of the business.

Mr. Gow: The House will agree with the Secretary of State that the present dispute has nothing to do with the Government's pay policy, but will the Minister confirm that there will be no question of the Government's making good the

losses that British Rail sustains as a result of the current dispute and that the present policy of cash limits will be adhered to most rigidly?

Mr. Horam: Certainly I can confirm that there will be no way out of the present set of problems through extra money coming from the taxpayer.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Has my hon. Friend studied the unfortunate advertisement that is being displayed on British Rail stations at present showing the low level of subsidy from the British taxpayers to British Rail compared with the massive subsidies to their railways by other European countries? Does he agree that the reason why West Germany is spending so much more—I think over £2,000 million—on subsidising its railways is that it regards them as an essential part of industrial growth?

Mr. Horam: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I do not think that that is a valid comparison of like with like. As I said in answer to an earlier Question, we have taken a consistently positive view on railway investment and we shall continue to do so. However, it is clear that in the end the amount of investment must depend on the efficiency and performance of the business.

Departmental Property (Calderdale)

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present position regarding the sale of property owned by his Department to Calderdale district council.

Mr. Horam: Discussions have taken place about the basis of valuation for such a sale. We have recently clarified our position and now await the council's response to our offer.

Mr. Madden: Why have the negotiations been so long-winded? How many properties are concerned? When does my hon. Friend expect a settlement to be made?

Mr. Horam: The discussions have taken a long time, but my hon. Friend knows that we have not been slow in this matter. The council has taken some time to come to conclusions. I believe that about 13 houses are concerned. I hope that we shall be able to make a settlement in the next few weeks.

Roads (Improvement)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve or replace roads with an exceedingly bad record of accidents.

Mr. Horam: We already take account of accident records in selecting schemes for the road programme, and we always attach special importance to schemes which are likely to save a large number of accidents.

Mr. Adley: Has the Minister seen the horror story of the latest statistics for death and injury on the Winchester bypass? Now that people such as Mr. John Tyme have been discredited, will he take more notice of not only the accident statistics but, for example, the Transport and General Workers Union, which for a long time has been pressing for the urgent completion of the link between the M3 and the M27, of which the Winchester bypass is a vital part?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that Hampshire county council, as agent of the Department is investigating various short-term remedies for the Winchester bypass, pending the completion of the M3. It will be reporting to the Department soon on its proposals.

Mr. Christopher Price: Has my hon. Friend recently driven all the way round the South Circular Road in London, particularly through Forest Hill and Catford in my constituency, a section with an appalling congestion and accident record? Is he aware that the speedy completion of the M25 would take a tremendous load off the South Circular Road, which should nor have the load of jugger-nauts and industrial traffic that it has at present?

Mr. Horam: I have not driven round the South Circular recently. [HON. MEMBERS: "Very wise."] It may well be wise, especially if I had tried yesterday. I take my hon. Friend's point. The Greater London Council has major plans for improvements to the South circular Road. I also take my hon. Friend's point about the M25.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Minister realize that the Winchester bypass is extremely dangerous and extremely

outmoded, and that the two protracted public inquiries will have enormously increased the cost of any scheme that is decided? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do his best to make an early decision, so that work can start as soon as possible?

Mr. Horam: That is reasonable, except that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is slightly ahead of events. We have not yet received the inspector's report on the last inquiry. I understand that it is still being typed, but I think that we shall receive it in the next week or two. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we shall then take as speedy a decision as possible.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In that context, will my hon. Friend define "speedy"? In some other cases we have had a wait of up to a year between the inspector's report going to the Minister and the ministerial decision. Can we be assured that that will not happen in this case?

Mr. Horam: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend can be assured that that will not happen on this occasion.

Mr. Fry: Does the Minister realise that the Government's present policy of punishing by reductions in the transport supplementary grant those local authorities that have been successful in restraining the level of subsidies to public transport can only mean that essential road improvements, particularly by local authorities, are being delayed, with consequent danger to life and limb? Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman please stop confusing transport subsidies with essential road expenditure?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken. In this year's settlement more money was made available not only for bus subsidies, which we have made known is a clear priority of the Government, but for maintenance and new schemes in the counties.

Vehicle Excise Duty

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to start phasing out vehicle excise duty.

Dr. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to start phasing out vehicle excise duty.

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to start phasing out vehicle excise duty.

Mr. Horam: We shall consider the timetable in the light of our consultations with those principally concerned.

Mr. MacKay: When the Minister considers his timetable, will he reflect on his statement in the House before Christmas suggesting that the number of people employed at the Swansea licensing centre would be reduced because of this new scheme? Surely there will still be a registration document, for which a fee will be payable. Surely the motorist will still have to show an MOT certificate and an insurance certificate. Will not that mean just as many staff at Swansea to carry out this work?

Mr. Horam: I always reflect on the statements which I make in the House. However, our calculations suggest that 800 fewer staff will be needed at Swansea as a result of the changes, out of rather more than 5,500. That will result from the abolition of VED. That will still mean an annual registration, possibly involving the production of MOT and insurance certificates. That has still to be settled in the process of the consultations that we are having. None the less, that is the figure which we think is likely to emerge at the end of the day.

Dr. Glyn: Has the Minister any statistics of the number of additional vehicles that there will be on the road as a result of the abolition of the excise duty? There must be a large number of people who now use their cars only on peak days, during holiday periods and at weekends. Secondly, until the duty is abolished, will the Minister assure his colleagues that the present licence will be enforced properly? Finally, with regard to the new registration system, has the hon. Gentleman considered the difficulties of the police in looking at registration documents to make sure that the MOT certificate is current? These are important problems.

Mr. Horam: As regards the hon. Member's final comment, he makes a sensible suggestion which I shall convey to the appropriate quarters. As for enforcement, of course one of the principal difficulties about the present VED is the

difficulty of enforcement. That is one reason why we took the decision which we announced recently. There is large-scale evasion at the moment, and it is costing the taxpayer £70 million or £80 million a year. That has to be stopped. As regards the number of vehicles on the roads, I do not think that abolition of the duty will make a significant difference.

Mr. Roberts: In calculating the 7,000 miles break-even point, the miles per gallon have been worked out on the basis of new cars. Is it not true that some poorer-paid people use rather older cars? What is the average mileage for a one-car family? Presumably the average takes in the two-car family. Is not the 7,000 miles break-even figure misleading?

Mr. Horam: No. We have undertaken considerable research into exactly where the break-even point rests. Obviously it will vary according to the type of car and the mileage done. I accept that. But, broadly speaking, just a majority of people will be better off as a result of the change.

Mr. Anderson: In what form will the Government seek the approval of the House, because a majority in this House will be needed for this measure? Will it be done during the Finance Bill, or by some other parliamentary process?

Mr. Horam: There will be a long process of consultation on this. But eventually, obviously, it must find its way into the Finance Bill because there will be a change in the rate of tax on petrol.

Mr. Penhaligon: What is the source of the Minister's statistics indicating this massive evasion of the vehicle excise licence? Has he ever, as I have recently, walked down a street and noticed how many cars have no road fund licence? I must confess that I am unable to find them. Is he convinced that this massive evasion takes place?

Mr. Horam: My officials produced these figures. I must discover the source of them. Perhaps they were not from the same source as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend ensure that special regard is paid to the position of relatively low-income families


in remote and rural areas, especially in those districts represented by Opposition Members, where the local authorities have very little time for public transport?

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend hits a very important nail firmly on the head. In both urban and rural areas, however, low-income families will gain from the change. This is one reason why the proposal was included in Labour Party policy, and one reason why we are now implementing it.

Mr. Norman Fowler: But surely my hon Friends are right. If the public are to be able accurately to judge the Government's proposals, they must be told how much the registration document will cost, how often it must be renewed, and whether it will have to be displayed. Why cannot the Government give that basic information?

Mr. Horam: Because we have taken the decision in principle, and many of the most important details remain to be worked out.

Coaches (Safety Provisions)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the implementation of proposals for roofs, brakes and seats, aimed at improving coach safety.

Mr. Horam: I have this week authorised consultation on draft regulations on the strength of superstructure in new coaches and on emergency exits. Work is also in hand on regulations for new braking standards. It is expected that draft standards for seats and seat mountings will be considered later this year within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

Mr. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend accept that, although I welcome this news, I regard the progress as being lamentably slow? Does he agree that this is one area of public transport which is expanding rapidly, especially with the greater use of coaches by elderly people? Will my hon. Friend at least ensure that in the further progress on this matter greater speed will be shown?

Mr. Horam: I accept what my hon. Friend says about this being an expanding area. There are more and more coaches

on our roads every year and, of course, we have to proceed as fast as possible on the safety aspects.

Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister recollect that a good many months ago when I wrote to him on the subject of anti-roll bars on coaches, at the instance of a doctor in my constituency who was worried about the frequency of serious crashes on some of our roads, he wrote me a quite soothing letter? Is he now able to say that he is bringing in anti-roll bars which will be effective? Might I tell him that after sending on his letter to that doctor—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must tell the Minister some other time. He can only ask a supplementary question now.

Mr. Horam: I hope that I always give relatively soothing replies to letters from hon. Members. In fact, we now have regulations stipulating the strength of the roofs of coaches. Whether that is exactly what the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) has in mind, I do not know, but certainly the principal objective is the same as his.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: In view of the Minister's natural concern for coach safety, especially on motorways, will he comment on the fact that 270 motorway maintenance men in the Midlands have gone on strike today, with the result that there is no gritting on any of the motorways within 30 miles of Birmingham?

Mr. Horam: I shall bring that to the attention of one of our emergency committees immediately.

Mr. Litterick: Has not the time come when we must have a system of official safety vetting and certification of all new motor vehicles, whether they be lorries, buses or private cars, along the same lines as we have for aircraft and pharmaceuticals, for example? Would not this be of great benefit to the public?

Mr. Horam: There are specific regulations now to which each vehicle type has to adhere. In addition, we make regular annual inspections of vehicles which have been on the road for some time. There is a fairly comprehensive network of rules and regulations which vehicles have to satisfy. I take my hon. Friend's point, but I think


that the present position is reasonably satisfactory.

Speed Limits (Bedfordshire)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, following representations made to him by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South, he will now authorise a lowering of the maximum speed limit in the villages of Stanbridge and Tilsworth, Bedfordshire; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Horam: As I have explained in my recent letter to the hon. Member, speed limits in these villages are a matter for Bedfordshire county council in the first instance.

Mr. Madel: In view of the heavy traffic going through these two villages, and the number of accidents which have occurred, will the Minister now invite Bedfordshire county council to submit proposals to his Department for a lowering of the speed limit until the promised new roads for the area are completed?

Mr. Horam: It is up to the county council to take the initiative in this case, and there is no way in which I can invite it to do that. It must make up its mind whether it wants to put forward a proposal. However, I should point out that there is already a 30 m.p.h. speed limit on these roads. I think that the council wants to reduce it to 20 m.p.h., which is granted only in very exceptional cases.

Lorry Drivers (Working Conditions)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory provisions govern lorry drivers' hours and distances in the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Rodgers: The principal provisions are contained in the Transport Act 1968 and EEC regulation 543/69.

Mr. Miller: If those regulations have the force of law, how has the Secretary of State given guidance to the enforcement authorities that they should not choose to enforce the law in those respects unless other offences have been committed at the same time?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that the whole House appreciates the problems raised for the industry as a result of regulation

543/69, because we had a lengthy discussion about it. I did my best at the Transport Council to ease the introduction of this regulation and to modify it as far as I could. I think that, by common consent, it was felt that there should be a running in or transitional period, as it were, so that there could be adjustment to the new regulation. This has generally been found to be successful and was largely welcomed. However, I agree that it produces some apparent anomalies in a country where the law is usually rigidly enforced.

Mr. John Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members were not present when we discussed this matter? One of the main reasons why the dispute is proving so intractable is that the regulations are complex. Drivers are going round saying that they work three times the national average on overtime. The authorities are now saying "We must have 24 hours off per week. That leaves only six days. We can drive only eight hours a day. Six eights are 48. Even if we get a 100 per cent. increase, if we work only half the hours, we shall be worse off than we were before." This wretched Common Market regulation and the ham-handed way in which it has been brought into operation have caused much of the trouble today.

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend's remarks indicate the complexity of EEC regulation 543/69. But I must frankly point out that, although changes in a law of this kind inevitably lead to dissatisfaction and place additional burdens on the road haulage industry, I do not believe that in any conceivable way this can be a major cause of the present dispute.

Mr. Costain: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a conversation between a Dutch lorry driver and pickets who tried to stop him at one of the Channel ports? If I may translate his language into parliamentary language, to the pickets who said "Stop" he replied "Do you realise that you are messing up your country? You are not going to mess up mine." The Dutch work under Common Market regulations.

Mr. Rodgers: I had not heard that story. I repeat that, although these regulations are complex and place a burden


on our industry, I do not believe that there is anything in them which is not capable of solution in a normal and orderly way.

Mr. Heffer: Despite my right hon. Friend's statement that the EEC regulation is not a serious contribution to the dispute, is it not clear that this is one of the most serious aspects in the dispute? It complicates the whole matter. It is no use my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench shaking their heads. They ought to get out and talk to lorry drivers. They will then know that this is one of the most important issues. Lorry drivers have to know the situation. My right hon. and hon. Friends should stop hiding their heads in the sand.

Mr. Rodgers: There have been the closest consultations between my Department and the Transport and General Workers' Union to enable these complex regulations to be understood. I pay tribute to the TGWU, and in particular to Mr. Jack Ashwell for the help that he has given in this respect.
Whatever may be said, I return to the point that it cannot be argued that these regulations are a principal or major cause of the present dispute.

Mr. Heffer: Of course they are.

Mr. Rodgers: The reduction in drivers' hours which will occur will affect only a minority of drivers, and they are amongst those who are the most highly paid.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition entirely support his view that these drivers' hours are not a major factor in the dispute? Does he agree that his hon. Friends below the Gangway would be tar better employed joining him and urging an immediate return to work and supporting those drivers who are demonstrating today to make it clear that they want the right to work?

Mr. Rodgers: Inevitably, there is much anger and many different views on both sides of the dispute. One important point which must be borne in mind is that the Government are not a party to the dispute. If the Road Haulage Association' present 15 per cent. offer—which, in my view, is far too high—were accepted, about two-thirds of lorry drivers now on

strike would be earning £90 or more a week, apart from fringe benefits. That is significantly above present average earnings in this country.

Heavy Lorries (Access to City Centres)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is having with local authorities about limiting the access of large lorries to the centre of London and other major cities.

Mr. Horam: I recently discussed the problem of lorries with local authorities at a number of regional meetings. I urged them to make more extensive use of their powers under the "Dykes" Act and made it clear that we would always try to look favourably on road schemes designed to help divert lorries from sensitive areas.

Mr. Goodhart: I congratulate the Government on temporarily solving at least one problem "at a stroke". We are all conscious of our dependence on heavy lorries, but will the Minister remember that in normal circumstances the increasing number of heavy lorries driving through the centre of London is causing increasing congestion and annoyance?

Mr. Horam: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said. He may like to know that there are now eight zones in London from which lorries are banned, that two more are to be introduced shortly and that no fewer than 28 are under consideration. This is a problem that we must take very seriously.

Mr. Sydney Irving: Does my hon. Friend accept that the construction of the Channel tunnel would relieve London and perhaps other cities of much of this heavy lorry traffic? What discussions has he had about this matter?

Mr. Horam: I think that we should have to build a few motorways and roads to deal with all the traffic from the tunnel, assuming that it carried vehicles and was not a purely railway tunnel. However, I think that that is a separate matter.

Mr. Townsend: What action are the Government taking to ensure that the outer orbital road is built without any further delay? Is it not monstrous that tiny, unrepresentative minorities have been able successfully to hold up this


route for so long, to the great disadvantage of 7 million people in Greater London?

Mr. Horam: If I remember rightly, the hon. Gentleman was present at a lengthy Adjournment debate one or two months ago on the progress of the M25. He will have gained a clear impression from that debate that it is the Government's No. 1 priority, because it has the top and prior call on resources in terms of trunk road building at the moment. We intend to continue to give it that priority.

Tachograph (European Court Judgment)

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the European Court to produce its judgment on the tachograph.

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the European Court to produce its judgment on the tachograph.

Mr. William Rodgers: Very shortly.

Mr. Temple-Morris: As a practical man, does the Secretary of State agree that the certain outcome of all this will be another negotiated period for the implementation of the tachograph in the United Kingdom?
Does he further agree that, by dragging his feet on this issue now for A number of years, he has missed the chance to deal with the tachograph as part of the current crisis in the road haulage industry? Surely it could easily have been got rid of as part of the current dispute and saved us from having to face yet another dispute in future.
Finally, does he agree that the tachograph, had it been involved in the present dispute, could have afforded a useful basis for a productivity settlement?

Mr. Rodgers: I must take the view that the hon. Gentleman does not have a complete sense of reality here. I do not believe that the present difficulties would have been eased had I not chosen, as he put it, to drag my feet. Very serious problems are involved. I think that we must await the decision of the court and then decide what it is best to do.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend note that if the Government disregard this

interference in British affairs they will have a great deal of support in the House?

Mr. Rodgers: I take note of my right hon. Friend's not unexpected position.

Mr. Dykes: Since British officials were also involved in the early stages of the tachograph proposal, has the Secretary of State decided why British lorry driver union representatives are so against it, while German lorry driver union representatives are so enthusiastic about it?

Mr. Rodgers: There are many strong differences of tradition. I have said in the House that if the tachograph had not been invented it would not have been necessary for us to consider its adoption. [Laughter.] I shall work that one out. What I had in mind to say was that we have our own ways of regulating drivers' hours and that, by and large, they have served us very well.

Kirkhamgate-Dishforth Trunk Road

Mr. Banks: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects work to commence on the construction of the Kirkhamgate-Dishforth trunk road.

Mr. Horam: Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, work will be started in stages between 1982 and 1984. We expect the first stage to be the improvement of the Al between Dishforth and Walshford.

Mr. Banks: In view of the sometimes appalling congestion on the A1 between the M18 and Dishforth, will the Minister undertake to give the highest priority to this scheme and say when the public inquiry will be held and what steps he will take to ensure that members of the public get a fair hearing at that inquiry?

Mr. Horam: We are pushing ahead with the scheme as fast as we can. I expect that the inquiry, which will certainly be held, will probably start in the autumn of this year. The new procedures that we have adopted since September ensure that all those who object to or support a scheme have a reasonable chance to put their point of view at an inquiry.

Roads (White Paper)

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his next White Paper on roads.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to issue a further White Paper on roads policy.

Mr. Horam: In the spring.

Mr. Neubert: In this winter season, is it not a relevant consideration that major roads should at all times be open and safe for the passage of vehicles? Is the Minister satisfied that emergency gritting should be a grace and favour arrangement by council workmen rather than a contractual condition of their employment?

Mr. Horam: This is one of the items in our emergency regulations as a matter of essential supplies. The position with salt is difficult, but we are making arrangements to help counties in difficulties, such as Berkshire. I know, too, that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) is concerned about the position in his county.

Mr. Whitehead: Is it not a fact that we have not yet debated the last White Paper on the new road programme, and that 10 years and £6,500 million of public expenditure have gone by since the last major debate in the House on the new roads programme? Is that not 10 years too long, and may we have a debate on the new White Paper?

Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has always been anxious that there should be debates on roads White Papers and I support that view. However, we have to look at the situation in the round, and I do not believe that my hon. Friend's criticisms are justified.

Mr. Fry: Will the Minister specify what emergency regulations he was referring to a moment ago, because I am sure that the House was a little taken aback by what he said? Road maintenance funds are very low in any case, and some counties are finding it difficult to pay for essential gritting. Surely, for that reason alone, the Minister should be particularly concerned because of the bad weather that we are experiencing and the consequent danger to those travelling on our roads.

Mr. Horam: I withdraw "emergency regulations" and substitute "priority supplies". On the question of salt and the cost of gritting this year, there have been financial problems because expenditure has been much higher than was expected.

However, that is taken into account in the general review of maintenance costs that we undertake each year, and I am sure that this year's problems will also be taken into account.

Mr. Rooker: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the West Midlands, and particularly in Birmingham, there has been totally inadequate road maintenance, including gritting, for months because of the continuing dispute between the Tory-controlled district council and the Tory-controlled county council?

Mr. Horam: I am sure my hon. Friend is right. I have heard him make that point before.

Mr. Eyre: In the preparation of the White Paper, will the Minister bear in mind the neglected needs of the Midlands and especially the fact that the needs of the manufacturing part of the car industry have not been taken into account? Will he also bear in mind the need for manufacturers in Birmingham and other parts of the Midlands to be able to gain access to the coastal ports and assure us that long-term investment, which is important to jobs, will have a high priority in his considerations?

Mr. Horam: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Rural Railways

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on rural railways.

Mr. Bagier: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on rural railways.

Mr. Horam: The policy on rural railways remains as stated in the transport policy White Paper.

Mr. Anderson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that discussions between the National Bus Company and the British Railways Board about the replacement of rural rail lines by buses—lines that could include the central Wales line, the Cardiff-Crewe line and many other commuter services into Cardiff and Edinburgh—have broken down? Will the Government confirm that that policy option is now dead?

Mr. Horam: I cannot confirm that the discussions have broken down. I have no information on that. I know that British Rail management has been discussing with the NBC some of the practical problems of closing lines and putting on buses as a substitute. There is no list of lines. That was a mistaken impression given in some of the press reports. If British Rail wished to go ahead on that basis, it would require legislation, and if British Rail wished to close the railway lines, it would require the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Bagier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy of replacing trains by buses in rural areas is unacceptable to the vast number of people living in those areas? Does he agree also that the Beeching cuts under a Conservative Government some time ago led to a savage reduction in the number of lines operating in this country, with no apparent financial benefit to British Rail? Does he further agree that the closing of such lines has an indirect effect on the financing of the main tines?

Mr. Horam: I accept what my hon. Friend says. He knows our position. While the Secretary of State and I are in charge of railway policy there will be no major programme of cuts.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: May we take it that the mind is not closed to reopening some lines, and in any consideration of reopening will the Minister call the attention of British Rail to the Blackburn-Clitheroe line, which is much missed?

Mr. Horam: Certainly, and I imagine that there will be a few other candidates up and down the country.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Minister aware—and I am sure he will agree—that too many railway lines were closed in Wales 10 or 20 years ago? Have the Government any plans to reopen some of those lines that should never have been closed?

Mr. Horam: I need not have made my further remarks. They were promptly taken up.

Mr. Cryer: Has my hon. Friend, in regard to rural railways, any plans to provide further investment to utilise the

lines that are in use and providing a valuable service so that we may make greater use of existing, fairly expensive fixed equipment? The provision of park-and-ride stations, for instance, would be a valuable addition for many commuters, particularly on a line such as that which runs from Keighley to Skipton. Obviously, there may be other similar examples throughout the country.

Mr. Horam: I am not sure whether that is a service in which my hon. Friend has a shareholding.

Mr. Cryer: No. It is a British Rail line.

Mr. Horam: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. He will be aware that there have been various moves to increase the use of particular lines. In some cases they have been Inter-City lines. One example is the opening of the Parkway station on the line between Bristol and London, though I imagine that my hon. Friend has more remote lines in mind.

Mr. Thompson: What is the Minister's policy about replacing the ancient, dusty and patched passenger carriages on rural services, such as that between Carlisle and Stranraer?

Mr. Horam: That is a small consequence of the large issues that we have been discusing during this Question Time. The overall level of investment will depend on what the Government can make available and what the business can make available from its profits. There is no guarantee, in present circumstances, that we can improve the conditions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Ports (Public Ownership)

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expand public ownership of the ports.

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expand public ownership of the ports.

Mr. William Rodgers: None in this Session.

Mr. Costain: Is the Minister aware that we are relieved to receive that answer? When making up his mind about extending the nationalisation of ports, does the right hon. Gentleman have


regard to the efficiency of the shipowners, ship turnround, better labour relations and the profits of the port? Can he give us any clear examples, if not now, in the Official Report, of where nationalised ports are more efficient than private enterprise ones?

Mr. Rodgers: The principal criterion should be how the ports can best serve the nation. About 90 per cent. of the business of our ports is conducted through ports that are publicly owned, in one way or another, and I think that the whole House would pay tribute to, for example, the work of the British Transport Docks Board.

Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many on this side of the House are disappointed that a Labour Government has not so far seen fit to bring in port nationalisation as a major priority? Does he agree that in the meantime many ports are facing major problems? Will he examine the question of financial assistance for ports which are finding great difficulty in meeting the cost of capital equipment and modernisation of quays in order to cope with the needs of new multi-purpose vessels?

Mr. Rodgers: Many of our ports are managing extremely well and rendering

an important service to the community. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are special cases, of which Liverpool is one, though I think matters are improving there, and London another. It is certainly true that we must maintain a proper level of investment in our ports, in whoever's ownership they may be.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

Mr. Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will appreciate that today's transport questions had to be put down considerably in advance of the current dispute in the road haulage industry. I am sure that the House is surprised that we are not to have a full statement by the Secretary of State this afternoon. After all, he is here to answer transport questions and hon. Members would like to ply him with many queries about this dispute, in which he has not been taking a leading part but has left it to his colleagues. Perhaps the Home Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am wondering what the point of order is for me.

Mr. Fry: The point of order, with respect, is whether the Leader of the House will make a statement about the Secretary of State.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, I will make a short statement about business tomorrow. The Supply day subject chosen by the Opposition has been changed and there will now be a debate on the economic situation, which will arise on an Opposition motion.

Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not allowed to question the Lord President?

Mr. Speaker: I did not think there was any question arising.

Mr. Hooley: The question arises on tomorrow's business and the business following that debate. Will the House be permitted to have three hours to debate the important matter of the steel industry which, as the Lord President knows, is subject to certain EEC documents? I understand that one motion has been tabled which, I presume, would normally restrict us to one and a half hours. This has given rise to serious trouble between Back Bench and Front Bench speakers in the past. Is the Lord President in a position to assure us that we will have at least three hours on the steel debate tomorrow?

Mr. Foot: Some of my hon. Friends raised this question last Thursday. I would still hope that we could discuss it in an hour and a half, but I am happy to have conversations with my hon. Friends to see what representations they wish to make. I will take those into account before making a final decision.

ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a further report to the House about the effect of the current industrial disputes in the road haulage industry, and elsewhere, on supplies and services, and on the Government's arrangements for ensuring that those supplies and services which are essential continue to be maintained.
The situation remains broadly as I reported it to the House on Monday. The code of practice is having some effect on the movement of supplies, but there remain severe problems, particularly at the ports. There are still cases where priority supplies continue to be held up. While there continue to be difficulties with some essential foodstuffs, the position on food generally is unquestionably getting better. Reports from a number of regions indicate that stock levels are not only being maintained but are rising, and, even in the North-West, some shops are in a position to restock with such goods as sugar, frozen foods and canned foods. The supply of salt has eased, and the slaughterhouses continue to function despite earlier fears that some would have to close.
The level of supply of animal feed-stuffs remains adequate, although, as my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House yesterday, the supply of animal feedstuffs to the intensive production sector, particularly in Scotland, has been difficult.
On the industrial front, the picture is complicated by the effects of the severe weather and the rail dispute, and the movement of goods has not, generally speaking, improved, despite a slight relaxation in the effects of picketing. However, production generally is holding up so far, though considerable production losses are being caused in particular industries, including steel, chemicals, glass and packaging, which will, if the situation persists, cause cumulative problems throughout the rest of industry. Lay-offs continue to increase, and, while any figures must be treated with considerable caution, the present level of lay-offs in Great Britain as a whole is of the order of 200,000. There are growing problems, particularly for small companies, of cash flow as well as of supplies. Only a continued easing of picketing and a sustained improvement in the transport situation will prevent a major decline in production in the near future.
Within the priority categories, the Government are particularly concerned that there should be no delay in moving medical and pharmaceutical supplies and the raw materials, especially chemicals, essential to them. There is evidence of some bottlenecks where supplies are not getting through. This is unacceptable.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, has devised new arrangements, which have already begun to operate, so that officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union will know promptly of bottlenecks when they arise and be in no doubt whatsoever that the Government require them to be dealt with immediately. If these arrangements are not quickly effective, and if there is no other way of getting these supplies moving, the Government will themselves arrange to have these supplies moved.
This brings me to the matter of the ambulance service. The House will know that the National Health Service ambulance men are now providing full emergency cover in London following the one-day stoppage at the beginning of the week, during which emergency services were provided by the Army, the police and the voluntary services, to whom the House will wish to pay tribute. At the moment, I understand that in the country as a whole normal emergency services are being maintained.
I should tell the House where matters stand on water supply. Despite the agreement reached in the national pay negotiations last Friday, there continue to be local problems in a few districts. The House will, however, be glad to hear that the problem in the Pennine division has been resolved.
Finally, as to picketing, the police tell me that reports of physical intimidation, of obstruction and of violence remain extremely rare. They will, of course, uphold the law fully, whenever and wherever the need arises. My colleagues and I will continue to report on the situation to the House.

Mr. Whitelaw: The House will be grateful for a statement which, unlike some others that have been made, is not complacent in any way. Does the Home Secretary accept that, as a result, his statement represents both a very serious and a deteriorating situation? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps those hon. Gentlemen who talk and shout should listen to this phrase:
Only a continued easing of picketing and a sustained improvement in the transport situation will prevent a major decline in production in the near future.
If that is not a serious and deteriorating

situation, I would like to know what is. The answer is that it is.
On the question of priority medical supplies, the right hon. Gentleman sets out a very serious and worrying situation. He still delays decisive action. Has not the time come for this decisive action to be taken instead of waiting to see whether further action is likely to improve the situation? It is too serious to permit further delay.
Would the right hon. Gentleman also agree that as the picketing and secondary picketing continue, action is now needed to give effect to the Prime Minister's fine words yesterday, when he said that the picket lines should be gone through by those who wish to do so? Is it not clear that fine words are no longer any use in this situation and that clear action is needed?

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman asks for action on picketing, but the law on picketing is clear when picketing is peaceful and in furtherance of a dispute. My right hon. Friend last week reiterated what the union had already said. No member of the union would be penalised or made to suffer in any way if he followed the code. That is a most important statement in respect of crossing picket lines in accordance with the code of practice.
As for the problems in industry, I have not today revealed to the House a deteriorating situation. I said that the problems would arise at some future date. Since all the guesses and estimates that were made 10 days ago were proved wrong, it would be foolish of me now to say when the problems will arise. I have told the House frankly that if supplies do not come through the pipeline there are bound to be problems at some point.
Medical supplies are getting through. Through the DHSS we have pinpointed the problems. A list was handed over last night, and a second list this afternoon, and we now await the result of that. One case on the list that we handed over concerned supplies that were urgently needed to treat patients suffering from cancer. In those circumstances I state—I do not think anyone could possibly object—that if this system does not work—I am not suggesting that supplies are not getting through at the moment—that if in a day or two there were to be a


problem which could not be resolved, I would not be prepared to say to the relatives of those suffering from cancer and other such diseases that we would stand back and do nothing. We would do something about it.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Home Secretary accept that the House and the public are becoming increasingly weary of these daily ministerial statements purporting to describe the situation in the country but containing no intention of action other than to continue to report the situation to the House? To return to what the Prime Minister said yesterday about picketing, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the reaction of lorry drivers is that they now require their union ticket because it is their meal ticket? That is the effect of the closed shop legislation, and unless the Government are prepared to give a clear directive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which way did you vote?"] I voted against it. The wolves shouting behind me need not worry. This legislation went through but we opposed it, and they know it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: You kept the Government in office.

Mr. Steel: We opposed the legislation, and the Conservatives know that perfectly well. Surely the time has come to review that law because lorry drivers are now ringing up their MPs asking how they can return to work. What advice would the Government give to them?

Mr. Rees: We have a situation in which negotiations take place regionally, and by the nature of the industry these matters proceed a bit at a time. The other day the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) voted for free collective bargaining—

Mr. Steel: Not free collective bargaining.

Mr. Rees: No one on the Opposition Benches could possibly say that strikes do not take place under any form of collective bargaining. In the light of the code of practice, no one participating in the dispute can be under any illusion about what has been said. Men will not be blacklisted and they will not lose their

union cards for doing the right thing in the circumstances.

Mr. Palmer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government generally on not succumbing to panic measures. However, will my right hon. Friend remember that the people of this country, including millions of Labour voters, expect firm leadership from the Government at this difficult time?

Mr. Rees: One way of pretending at the moment that there is firm leadership—there may be a change, because something needs to be done—would be to proclaim a state of emergency. We did not declare a state of emergency in the case of the firemen's strike or the dispute involving tanker drivers. A state of emergency, unless it gave one powers that one could use, would not be firm leadership in these circumstances. I hear of people not working to clear the Ml today. There has been a breakdown in normal behaviour. We must surmount that, but that cannot be done by using the law, as we have learned in the past.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Home Secretary said with great confidence that no one who crossed a picket line would lose his union card or in any other way bear future union damage. Since neither the Government nor the Transport and General Workers' Union can enforce the code of practice for picketing, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make good that guarantee?

Mr. Rees: I do not know whether it is suggested that union rules should become part of the law of the land, but within voluntary organisations these matters have to be seen in the context of the union rules. The union has given its word on these matters, and it will keep it.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement at this stage of the strike makes it apparent to some of us that the Government's policy is simply to sit tight and hope that the problem will go away? On the question of chemicals and other essentials, does he accept that it is not enough, as the statement provides, to make the transport union aware of bottlenecks? It is for the Government, once they are aware of them, to take the necessary action.

Mr. Rees: I thought that I had made it abundantly clear that the first step is to make sure that all those involved know the loads that ought to be carried. The first list was given last night, and a second list this afternoon, and if it is not acted upon we shall have to carry those goods ourselves.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What with?

Mr. Rees: There are many ways in which this can be done. The job of a Government in these circumstances is to deal with essential supplies. There are some problems with food, but we know that statements made last week by Opposition Members about malnutrition, and so on, were completely false. Essential supplies are being dealt with. That is the Government's responsibility.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the statements being made from the Opposition Benches about the removal of union cards show a complete lack of knowledge of the constitution of the union and the procedures that take place within it?

Mr. Cyril Smith: Go and ask the drivers.

Mr. McNamara: As well as demonstrating bad manners, they show a complete lack of knowledge of the rules of the union and the way the disciplinary procedures operate upon members. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the union has beeen co-operating in cases such as ICI, at Runcorn, in the transporting of important medical supplies? It is no part of the union's policy to prevent the passage of essential drugs and services to the sick and dying. It is doing all in its power to make sure that they get through.

Mr. Rees: What my hon. Friend says about medical supplies is right. Last evening we decided that the procedures that were being followed in that respect were not good enough, and therefore, because of the seriousness of the situation, we had to have a different system. Supplies were moving before, but it is not our policy to leave it to the old arrangement—the arrangement that was reported to the House the other day.
I turn now to the question of the removal of union cards. Allegations are being made. When the dispute is over,

it will be interesting to discover whether those now making the allegations bring forward examples showing where this is happening.

Mr. Amery: Is the Secretary of State aware of the report, on the tape, of a major clash in the Labour Party between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy on a European issue? Is he aware that this is rather curious at this time of crisis? Can he assure the House that there is no corresponding difference in the Government's approach to the present industrial crisis, and that he is speaking for a united Cabinet?

Mr. Rees: My answer to the right hon. Member's last question is "Yes". When I consider the type of politicians with whom he mixes in Europe, I think that he is the last person to talk about democracy.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Has the Home Secretary noted how the Opposition are trying to exacerbate the situation created by the road haulage dispute? Does he agree that thre is an urgent need not to break the strike but to settle the dispute? Does he agree that the Prime Minister and the present Leader of the House showed considerable statesmanship during the miners' dispute early in 1974? Will he now prevail upon them to intervene in this dispute with a view to achieving an early settlement?

Mr. Rees: Arrangements have been made to ensure that essential services are provided. That is the role of Government It would be so if oil were involved and it was so during the firemen's dispute. The present dispute involves a free collective bargaining argument between two sides.

Mr. Adley: It is a free collective picketing argument.

Mr. Rees: It is a free collective bargaining argument. Those who support free collective bargaining must live with it.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is the Home Secretary aware that I told an official at his office this morning that a company with which I am connected has 27 containers locked up in Felixstowe, Southampton and Tilbury docks? Is he aware that companies that are not in disagreement with the TGWU are prepared


to collect the merchandise but that pickets are turning them away? Is he aware that when the union official was contacted at Southampton he used a four-letter word and put the telephone down? What can be done to stop several thousand people being put out of work because this merchandise is not being delivered?

Mr. Rees: My office will have passed on that information to the appropriate emergency committee. If the hon. Member is suggesting that essential supplies are being held up—supplies that it would be the responsibility of Government to get through in a state of emergency, no more and no less—of course I shall look at the matter personally.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take four more questions from each side. The subject is to be debated in the House tomorrow.

Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement about cancer sufferers will cause great concern to hon. Members on the Government Benches? In that sense my right hon. Friend is being unfair, in view of the co-operation of the union so far on such matters. Does he agree that an assurance has been given that the union will respond to any approaches that he makes on such matters?

Mr. Rees: Certainly. I was not being unfair. I spoke to union officials about this and they readily agreed to co-operate. What I am saying is that if the arrangements, with the best will on earth, do not work properly, the Government must step in. It must be so.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Royal county of Berkshire has had no salt for its roads for the last week; that yesterday the county sent a convoy of 55 lorries to ICI, Winsford; and that they were allowed into the depot and salt was loaded, but that when they left the depot the pickets said that they could not go through the picket line with the salt on board? Is he aware that they were forced to unload and return without salt? Will the Home Secretary promise that the Government will ensure that salt is provided to the county council so that the icy roads can be made safe?

Mr. Rees: I shall check that. I need to know the precise details. Two unions are involved. The Opposition bash the TGWU but the United Road Transport Union is also involved. A question was asked earlier about Suffolk. I have checked, and I am told that the Suffolk county council has seven days' supply of salt.

Mr. Terry Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation in the South-West has improved in the last week or so? Will he acquaint the House with the position at Avonmouth docks, where picketing has improved, thanks to the strong action of the TGWU, which has overcome last week's difficulties?

Mr. Rees: I understand that the situation has improved. Nevertheless, at my meeting later this afternoon I want to check on the supply of derv, which was causing particular difficulties yesterday.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Is the Home Secretary aware that the position is probably more serious than he implies, and that food manufacturers cannot guarantee indefinitely that goods will remain on the shelves? Is he further aware that in Sheffield industrial leaders are finding it difficult to obtain raw materials and to send out goods? Does he know that at the British Steel Corporation there will be 14,000 lay-offs unless action is taken immediately?

Mr. Rees: The steel industry in particular is experiencing problems, but under a state of emergency and the laws laid down by the House the responsibility of Government is to ensure essential supplies. Certain industries would not be affected by a state of emergency. As for food, I report to the House the information that I receive from all parts of the country.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I welcome the improvement in the flow of food supplies and animal feedingstuffs, particularly in Scotland, but will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the cardinal effect of such disputes is that working people and their families are damaged by the action of other working people? When offers to settle are made, will my right hon. Friend stress that aspect?

Mr. Rees: We are not involved in the discussions. It is clear that people in


industry are affected. That is the situation that the country faces.

Mr. William Clark: Is the Home Secretary aware that the people are fed up to the back teeth with little unelected committees up and down the country determining which goods should travel and what priorities should be given to different types of goods? Does he agree that if there is something wrong with the laws action must be taken? Does he also agree that the country is suffering today not from free collective bargaining but free collective bullying?

Mr. Rees: Many people want to see the laws altered, but I do not think that such an alteration would help, because the industry involved is so complicated. In such an industry a dispute is bound to have an effect. The Government decide priorities. The supplies are better than they would be under a state of emergency.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a declaration of a state of emergency at any time represents a breakdown in the democratic processes which many of us who are reluctant to give greater powers to the Executive do not welcome? Does he agree that the record of the Conservatives when they were in Government and declared five stages of emergency in three and a half years is nothing to be proud of? Does he agree that although a declaration of a state of emergency might provide an emotional thrill for some Opposition Members it is not the best way to achieve results?

Mr. Rees: I have said before that states of emergency have been used in the past but have had very little effect. The point is that if we were in a position—which we are not—in which essential supplies were not being provided, the Government would have to proclaim a state of emergency. That time has not yet arrived.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is not one of the most objectionable features of this dispute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Clark) has just said, that people who want to move their goods are forced to get permission not from Government but from local strike committees? Does the Home Secretary

realise that under the emergency powers regulations of 1973 it would have been the Government who dealt with the problem of getting the goods through? Does he not agree that it is better to have the rule of Government than the rule of strike committees?

Mr. Rees: On the latter point, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has applied his mind to the question of the large number of vehicles involved in this industry and the question not only of the movement from A to B but of broken-down loads from B to C onwards. If he has done that—there may be laughter about this, but what he and other Opposition Members have to consider are the implications of the Government taking action before the situation becomes worse. In the days when we had the oil problem, Opposition Members were asking for a state of emergency. Had we declared one, the supply of oil would have been far worse than it was under the arrangements that were made.

Later—

Mr. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his statement said that essential supplies to the pharmaceutical industry were getting through the picket lines. Having made inquiries, I understand that that is definitely untrue. I should be grateful if you would let me know when would be the earliest opportunity that the Secretary of State would be in order in correcting that statement and making a further statement.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to say when the Home Secretary would wish to correct a statement that he had made. The hon. Gentleman knows that the House will be debating this matter tomorrow. That may be an opportunity, if he seeks and is fortunate enough to catch my eye, for him to make his point.

SMALLPOX (BIRMINGHAM)

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Secretary of State for Social Services I have a short statement to make. I have in my hand a copy of the charges pending against Birmingham university in connection with the laboratory accident. I


must rule that under our sub judice rule no reference should be made to the part of Birmingham university in this affair. There is no objection to questions in general terms about the safeguards for handling dangerous viruses or the way in which the Shooter report was released to the public.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the report of the investigation into the tragic occurrence of smallpox in Birmingham last year.
Official publication of the report is still held up by the prosecution of Birmingham university under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. In view of the action taken by Mr. Clive Jenkins in making copies of the report available to the press, I think that I should make it clear to the House that the copy supplied by me to Mr. Jenkins was only one of a number sent to interested parties in accordance with undertakings which I had given, and with a covering letter, which made it clear that I had been legally advised that the report could not be published while the action against Birmingham university was pending. No permission to publish was expressed or implied.
I turn now to the report itself, and I should like to express my thanks to Professor Shooter and his colleagues for a comprehensive, valuable and speedy report.
The report recommends changes in the general arrangements for ensuring safety in laboratories handling dangerous pathogens. The Government accept the substance of the report. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act provides an effective framework for control of all activities in these laboratories, but the Government believe that the present voluntary arrangements must be substantially strengthened and given legal force to provide the fullest safeguards for those working in the laboratories and the public at large.
First, in line with the Shooter report's recommendations, we have decided that laboratories intending to hold or handle category A pathogens will be required by regulations to notify details of their proposed

work and supporting information. We have asked the Health and Safety Commission to make proposals for such regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as soon as possible after the appropriate consultations.
Second, the report recommends reconsideration of the arrangements for approval of laboratories dealing with category A pathogens. Our preliminary review of this matter suggests that we would be wise to replace the present voluntary arrangements by a licensing system embodied in regulations. Together with the Health and Safety Commission, we are starting consultations with interested parties on the details of such a licensing system.
Third, we have accepted the recommendation that category A laboratories should be reviewed annually.
Fourth, we have decided that the responsibilities and constitution of the dangerous pathogens advisory group should be reviewed, and that its membership should be broadened so as to represent those who run and work in, the laboratories and the wider public interest. We shall carry out this review as quickly as we can in consultation with interested parties and the Health and Safety Commission.
The report also recommends that work with smallpox virus should not be carried out in a densely populated area and that work previously carried on in Professor Dumbell's laboratory at St. Mary's hospital medical school, Paddington, should therefore be resited. The House will wish to know that, except for what was essential to the investigation of the Birmingham outbreak, no work has been done at St. Mary's with smallpox virus for over a year. The relevant virus material is held in the laboratory, which is secure and meets the full requirements of the World Health Organisation. The WHO is trying, in consultation with the Governments concerned, to reduce the number of laboratories in the world holding smallpox to three or four and wishes to retain Professor Dumbell's unique expertise in this context. In the meantime, no work with smallpox is being conducted at St. Mary's and the virus stock is being held securely. In addition to the important reforms in the system which I have outlined, we have taken other urgent action on the report.
The programme of reinspection and review of existing category A laboratories which the report recommends is well under way and a number of reinspections have already been carried out, in close association with inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive. In some cases it has become clear that improvements in safety procedures are necessary and immediate action has been taken.
Copies of the report have been sent to the heads of all category A laboratories and they have been asked to consider the safety aspects of the report which apply to them. They have also been asked to report any variations in the category A pathogen work previously notified by them.
The university of Birmingham has confirmed that no category A pathogens are now held there and that a written request for clearance would be made before such pathogens were acquired by the university in future.
Action has been taken, as recommended in the report, to ensure full liaison between the Government and the World Health Organisation concerning the organisation's dealings with category A laboratories in this country. We also intend to issue very shortly the Howie code of practice for clinical laboratories dealing with category B pathogens.
No system of control and no safety arrangements can be 100 per cent. fool-proof. But the tragic events in Birmingham have revealed that constant vigilance is needed to safeguard those who work in laboratories as well as the wider public. I believe that the changes I have announced today will help to prevent what happened in Birmingham happening again.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the Secretary of State aware that the whole House will wish to express deep sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives in this tragic accident, all the more so in that it comes at a time when smallpox is being eradicated from the face of the earth? Is he further aware that we acknowledge and recognise the seriousness of the lapses in safety procedures which have been disclosed by the Shooter report? Does he agree that the mechanisms set up to try to control such work, notably the dangerous pathogens advisory group and the World Health Organisation,

failed to achieve their purpose? Does this not make the situation all the more serious?
There are two issues which arise from his statement which I would like to raise with the Secretary of State. The first, which in one sense is the less important, concerns the breach of confidence which arose, whereby the report which should not have been published for reasons to which you have adverted, Mr. Speaker—namely, the pending prosecution—was, in fact, published. Whatever may have been said by the Secretary of State in his covering letter to Mr. Clive Jenkins, is it not the case that the Secretary of State was expressly and positively told by Mr. Clive Jenk ins that if he got the report he would publish it?
Why, in those circumstances, did he go ahead and let Mr. Clive Jenkins have the report, while at the same time trying to pretend to the rest of the country that he was withholding publication?
May I turn to what must be the more important aspect, namely, the substance of the report'? Is it not the case that in recent years the Government have been warned again and again of the dangers inherent in many of our laboratories, notably by the Harrington report of 1975, and again, in respect of category B pathogens, by the Howie report of January 1978? Why have the Government waited so long to take action? Is not this tragedy a direct result of the Government's in-activity in this area?
Turning to the question of St. Mary's hospital, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is now able to tell the House where this immensely important work will be carried on if it is not to be carried on at the hospital? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of Professor Dumbell's statement that the risk at St. Mary's is vanishingly small? Where would the work be carried on more safely?
Third, coming to statutory controls, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no primary legislation will be required and that the Government have all the powers necessary to introduce these statutory controls? Since they are manifestly seen to be necessary, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce them as swiftly as possible?

Mr. Ennals: I certainly join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing deep


sympathy with the family of Mrs. Parker, her friends and the others who were associated with this incident, which caused deep distress and concern, not just among her family but among those working in the university—and not only in this laboratory. It is right that all hon. Members should express sympathy with the families.
I do not wish to proceed further on any questions of lapses in procedure. This is quite clearly a part of the problems which are currently sub judice and with which I cannot deal across the Floor of the House. It is clear from the report and its recommendations that we need a much tighter and more effective system and that what has been up to now a voluntary system can no longer remain so. I have therefore set out in my statement the conclusions of the Government on this issue.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of a breach of confidence. There was no breach of confidence between myself and Mr. Clive Jenkins. Let us be clear about this. I had given undertakings to the parties directly concerned that as soon as the report was available I would make it available to them. Those parties included the Health and Safety Executive, the TUC, the World Health Organisation—all of which were present on the investigation—the university and a number of other unions as well as ASTMS. I said that I would make the report available to them and I said that it was my wish to publish the report if legal circumstances permitted. That was long before the report was published, and was made quite clear.
When the report came out I naturally fulfilled my first undertaking. There were parts of the report which it was important that these organisations and the university should see because they touched upon the safety of their staff. I am glad that I made the report available. Mr. Jenkins made it clear to me that his legal advice was different from mine and that it was to the effect that publication would not prejudice the case. I made it perfectly clear that my legal advice said that there was no question about this. This is why I again made that point absolutely clear in the letter which I sent, not only to Mr. Jenkins but to all those who received the report. I said in my letter that my legal advice was such that

I could not possibly publish the report. In a free country other people can have different legal advice. The legal advice given to Mr. Jenkins has now been challenged in the courts. We shall have to wait and see what happens.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) also raised the question of St. Mary's. It is important that I should add to what I have said. No work on smallpox is currently being conducted there and we are now having talks with Professor Dumbell to see whether such work can be relocated away from London. I believe that it is most important that the work in which he is involved should continue. He recognises this as does the World Health Organisation.
I confirm that no primary legislation is required to deal with this issue. We are talking about regulations. At present we are consulting about them. I shall take the opportunity of bringing the regulations before the House.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of the disclosure is being challenged in the courts. Is he aware that the Attorney-General has given an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to the effect that the Attorney-General has considered all the circumstances and is satisfied that they are not such as would justify a reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions? The point is not, therefore, being challenged in the courts. Is this not an unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Ennals: On 22 January the divisional court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court gave Birmingham university leave to take proceedings for an order of prohibition to stop Birmingham magistrates proceeding with the prosecution of the university by the Health and Safety Executive on the grounds, presumably, that a fair trial would not be possible because the report had received such wide publicity. I have to say that the issue will be coming before the High Court.

Mr. Hoyle: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement? May I ask him to make it clear that ASTMS, of which I am the president—and I was present when members of the union met my right hon. Friend—made it clear to


him that if the report was sent under the cloak of confidentiality it did not want it?
Are there not three issues which follow from this state of affairs? Should we not now hold a public inquiry into laboratories which are holding stocks of dangerous pathogens? May I also welcome the fact that DPAG is no longer to be with us? Can my right hon. Friend reorganise it under the aegis of the Health and Safety Executive, possibly on the lines of GMAG, which has been so successful and which includes trade union representatives and members of the public?
My right hon. Friend has not referred to Crown immunity. Without touching on the case in question, may I ask whether it is not a fact that, if this had been a National Health Service property, the Health and Safety Executive could not have issued a prohibition notice or proceeded with the prosecution, as it has done? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that Crown immunity has to go?

Mr. Ennals: Dealing first with the confidentiality point, I have said that there was a discussion, in which my hon. Friend took part, on 14 December, when I made it clear what my legal advice was. Mr. Jenkins made clear his intention. I said to him that if his legal advice was different from mine he should contact my legal advisers. I reiterated in my letter exactly what the legal advice was. I made it perfectly clear that it was for Mr. Jenkins to decide. I am sure that it would have been wrong of me to have withheld the report from these organisations, including the university, since they needed to take action on parts of the report which were extremely important from a safety view-point.
I have made it clear in my statement that we are reviewing the structure of DPAG. I agree with my hon. Friend that the current structure of the genetic manipulation advisory group is one which has some attractions. It is much broader, including representatives of the unions and wider interests, as well as scientists. I am looking carefully at this group to see whether it offers a useful pattern for our purposes. I have forgotten the last point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hoyle: My last point concerned Crown immunity.

Mr. Ennals: It is true that there is Crown immunity, but that does not by any means mean that orders and recommendations made by the Health and Safety Executive are not taken seriously by the Government or any other institution to which they apply. The Act covers Government bodies. They are bound to accent the law in the same way as the public.

Mrs. Knight: May I ask the Secretary of State two questions arising from happenings in my constituency, with which the Shooter report dealt, which do not deal with my constituency but which have implications for those engaged in work elsewhere? What steps does the right hon. Gentleman intend taking to ensure that persons carrying the heavy responsibility of being heads of departments dealing with work such as this are not grossly overworked? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Shooter report clearly indicates that such gross overworking is a safety hazard? My second point concerns the insurance of employees engaged in this type of work. Since the report notes that indemnity for such employees would not extend where wilful negligence had been found may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that employees will be protected from the consequences arising as a result of a lack of proper staffing? Does that constitute wilful negligence? If it does, who is responsible?

Mr. Ennals: Overwork was a factor. That is made clear in the report. That is not a matter for me to deal with, but it is a reason that led me to think that the report needed to be made known to some of the institutions concerned, as well as the staff who represent them. Insurance is one of the matters that properly should be discussed by the employers and the trade unions representing the staff. There will need to be a good deal of consideration within the universities and other institutions that handle dangerous pathogens to prevent the overwork that clearly was a factor in these circumstances.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the Government's view on the report's recommendation that such work is not suitable in urban areas? Surely what is not safe in urban areas is not safe in rural areas. Many of those


living in rural areas are fed up with their parts of the country being used as dumping grounds for what is not acceptable in urban communities.

Mr. Ennals: That is not so. Safety is the principal concern of the Shooter report and the Government's acceptance of the basic recommendations within it. We are going to great lengths about the safety challenge. Safety aspects are equally important whether an institution is located in the country or in a city. The basic recommendations that deal with the handling of dangerous pathogens and the safety measures that should be taken will apply in all instances.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the argument of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) about rural districts and urban districts is nonsense? Even in the days when tuberculosis was rife, a tuberculosis hospital could be located anywhere as long as a cordon sanitaire was put round it. We appreciate the legal constraints under which my right hon. Friend is working, but does he agree that often legal constraints do not work in the public interest? Therefore, Mr. Clive Jenkins did a service to the public interest by making the matter public. I ask my right hon. Friend not to succumb once again to the panic that others try to develop. Will he ensure that the work continues to go ahead, as it is essential that it does so? All that the public want is for the work to go on in areas where there is the minimum risk to everyone concerned.

Mr. Ennals: I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend said that the public wish the work to go on in areas where there is the minimum risk to all concerned. Fortunately, legal constraints are matters not for me but for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I shall not make any comment on the question whether the report should be published. My advice is clear. I agree that we should not have any panic. If we were now to move from what some felt was inadequate protection, without the backing of the law, to such a degree of protection that we were to damage the ability of institutions to carry out effective diagnosis or to undertake effective

research, the loss to ourselves and to the world would be great. That is a factor that we are considering closely in respect of the work of Professor Dumbell.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we have brief questions, I shall be able to call all those hon. Members who have been rising.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: To what extent has existing research been broken up and held back by these unfortunate events?

Mr. Ennals: I do not think that any important research has been held up. Work has had to be held in question. There has been a careful check on safety precautions. That was one of the values of the report being made known to those who needed to know. There are some questions still to be determined—for instance, about the work of Professor Dumbell. These are matters that are under consideration.

Mr. Rooker: I, too, offer my sympathy to the families of those who suffered in the tragedy. I pay tribute to the hundreds of citizens in Birmingham who co-operated with the quarantine regulations that prevented a further and more catastrophic situation than the one that arose.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the publication of the report in the widest possible sense is far more important than a tinpot prosecution that at the end of the day might lead to a £1,000 fine? Does he agree that Clive Jenkins performed a public service by publishing the report? Will he confirm that the report was sent on 21 December to the organisations that he mentioned, for their information and use? He does not seem to be as positive on that matter as we would like.
Is it not a tragedy that we are restricted by the sub judice rule when every news-paper in Britain has published full details, when articles have appeared, for example, in the New Scientist and when television programmes have been broadcast? Lord Grade personally vetoed a major programme to appear on the ATV screens in Birmingham to point out to the citizens of Birmingham what was in the Shooter report. It is a misuse of the sub judice rule to cover up an issue of major importance that transcends the normal issues of sub judice. I should like my right hon. Friend to publish officially at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to cast any reflection on my ruling.

Mr. Rooker: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. I am complaining as an individual that you, Mr. Speaker, have to make such a ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I am the servant of my masters, who are before me. It is the House itself that has decided on the sub judice rule, and it expects me to observe it.

Mr. Ennals: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that I wanted to publish the report at the earliest possible moment. As he knows, it was only legal advice that prevented me from doing so. I still wish to publish the report officially at the earliest possible moment. I confirm that when the letter was sent, which said that the report was for information and for use, the "use" with which I was concerned was the recommendations on action which were relevant to safety provisions. That is what I had in mind. If similar events were to take place, I should still make the report available. I believe that a great deal of important work has been done by the organisations concerned since the report was circulated shortly before Christmas.

Mr. Rossi: If the right hon. Gentleman had been advised that legally he could not publish the report because of dangers of prejudicing a trial or even preventing a trial taking place, and yet he wished the information to be in the hands of those to whom it is important, was he not advised to obtain an undertaking from those who should have the report not to publish it as a condition of their receiving it? Secondly, I raise a purely constituency matter. There is great concern within the urban area of Muswell Hill within my constituency that the Coppetts Wood isolation hospital, which was used for lassa fever cases, for example, may be used for experiments involving infectious fevers. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give an assurance to my constituents that that will not happen?

Mr. Ennals: Instead of merely making a statement on the Floor of the House, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to tell him the exact situation of the Coppetts Wood hospital. The hon. Gentleman

spoke about legal advice. These are matters that are best dealt with now by the court. The case is before the High Court. It would be unwise for me to make any further comment.

Mr. Lee: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). My right hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a licensing system to control laboratories dealing with category A disease experimentation. Will he say more about that? Many of us regard that as a minimum safeguard to ensure that the types of laboratory that we are dealing with are properly monitored, in the hope that such an appalling tragedy will not arise again.

Mr. Ennals: As I said in my statement, these are matters on which we are now in consultation. The Health and Safety Executive has started consultations with the interested parties on the details of the licensing system, which will be brought before the House. The matter will then be open for debate. If hon. Members wish to submit their views, I can assure my hon. Friend that they will be considered carefully as part of the consultation.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a close interest in the subject at the Microbiological Research Establishment at Porton, which he was good enough to visit a few weeks ago? Does he appreciate that the scientists at Porton do not regard the handling of the smallpox virus with much anxiety because there is a certain protection against it, whereas many of the viruses that they handle, of equally deadly diseases, do not have such protection?
At the same time, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is inevitably a certain local concern, as also experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi)? Will the right hon. Gentleman also write to me? Will he come to a conclusion quickly, before speculation mounts, as to the future site for research in this field?

Mr. Ennals: As the hon. Gentleman said, I recently visited Porton Down and spent some hours at the Microbiological Research Establishment. He is right to point out that Porton has the highest


standards not only of research but of safety. I mentioned earlier that since the Shooter report a number of inspections have been carried out of establishments with category A pathogens. Porton was one of them. It had an absolutely clean bill of health, as it should have.

Mr. Thompson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the position of such laboratories in Scotland? Has he sought an assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland that laboratories there will conform in every way with the standards set out in his statement?

Mr. Ennals: Yes. I can give that absolute assurance.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that inspections are currently taking place in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive? Will he also confirm that the regulations will be under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act? Will he accept that the Act already provides statutory responsibility? Is not my right hon. Friend concerned that that statutory responsibility appears not to have been exercised by the inspectorate before this difficulty arose? Finally, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is satisfied that once the regulations are passed—and, indeed, that this will be the position now—there will be sufficient personnel in the Health and Safety Executive to man these inspections and retain future standards, because they are the people with the statutory responsibility?

Mr. Ennals: That last question by my hon. Friend is really one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who has the main responsibility for the Health and Safety Executive, but I can confirm that the inspections which have been carried out very recently have been carried out together with the executive, which has a crucially important role to play. I can also confirm that the regulations will be made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

Mr. Nelson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that while the Government can introduce more stringent regulations for the physical containment of these dangerous pathogens, a much more difficult challenge is to try to restrict the

element of human failure involved in this experimentation? I welcome his proposals and the Shooter report's recommendations on approval, notification and licensing, and also on the widening of the dangerous pathogens advisory group, but has the right hon. Gentleman any proposal to try to improve the responsibility of the individuals who will be dealing with these pathogens and experimenting in between the periods of supervision and inspection by the Health and Safety Executive or any other group?

Mr. Ennals: I have great sympathy for the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I read with interest an article in Nature on 11 January about biosafety research and education, and the proposal for such a unit. Certainly, these are matters which we need to look at very carefully. It is clear that people working in these circumstances can be working under the greatest possible pressures. I think that we need to look very carefully at what more can be done in terms of human support for those who carry this heavy responsibility.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that he deliberately defied or got round the legal advice that he had been given when he gave the report to someone he knew did not regard himself as bound by its confidentiality? Will he accept that his action has directly caused expensive and difficult litigation in the divisional court, all paid for by public bodies, and has delayed the trial of criminal proceedings? Will he discuss the matter with the Law Officers and undertake that he will not in future issue confidential documents that he is advised might prejudice legal proceedings to people who will not be bound by the confidence, and certainly cease to give confidential documents to Mr. Clive Jenkins in particular?

Mr. Ennals: I deny absolutely what the hon. Gentleman has said. I assure him that I will continue both to consult and to take the advice of the Law Officers in these cases. I did so in every aspect of my handling of this situation.

SUB JUDICE RULE

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You mentioned earlier that the sub judice rule is one that you have to


apply, and we recognise that you are in the hands of the rules, Standing Orders and decisions of the House. But the question arises that, in certain instances, prosecutions which may be of a relatively minor nature, such as those in magistrates' courts, with perhaps a maximum fine of, say, £400, can, because of that rule, lead to a serious limitation on debate and discussion in this House. It could be argued that in some cases such a minor prosecution might be used in order to inhibit discussion in this House and other similar places.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) pointed out, in the case of the Shooter report there has been extensive and wide coverage by people and organisations outside the House. I am sure that you will agree that, since this is the most important assembly in the country, our rights need to be clearly defined and protected to ensure that our debate is of the fullest and widest nature, and that no possible use or abuse can be made of the initiation of prosecutions to inhibit debate.
I should, therefore, be grateful to you for your guidance as to how this sort of ruling can be changed and what methods the House has, not in the long term but to give hon. Members here and now some opportunity in the reasonably foreseeable future an opportunity of changing and debating the rules in order to allow you the sort of flexibility that I know you would appreciate.

Mr. Lee: I associate myself with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). Has it ever been canvassed, Mr. Speaker, with the Press Association, that matters of a judicially contentious kind might, as it were, be excluded by a gentleman's agreement with the press? Would that not be one way round the problem? It must be very unsatisfactory that debate in this House can be hamstrung, perhaps for many months, by prosecutions on the lines that we have heard discussed. These are not custody cases; they are matters under summons. It may be a very long time before there is a final determination.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) for the way in which they submitted their point of view. May I say,

first of all, that because we are the High Court of Parliament we have to maintain the highest standards. What the press does is its business. We in our dealings with the law courts have very special responsibilities that are rooted in history. "Erskine May" tells us that in the case of a criminal case in a court of law, which this case is, from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made that case becomes sub judice.
The answer to the hon. Member for Keighley is that it is the House itself, and only the House, which can change that ruling. It could only be done, of course, if opportunity were given for a debate.

GRAVE DIGGERS AND CREMATORIUM ATTENDANTS (LIVERPOOL)

Mr. Steen: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the effect of the grave diggers' and crematorium operators' strike and the inability to bury the dead in Liverpool".
Grave diggers and crematorium operators empolyed by the Liverpool city council went on strike today. The consequences are as repugnant as they are an outrage to human decency. Today, 106 corpses are waiting to be either buried or cremated. They are mostly stored in undertakers' chapels, but these are rapidly running out of space. With this in mind, the council had the foresight to make alternative storage arrangements by setting up a temporary mortuary at Fleming Road, Speke, in Garston. Here, bodies will be fully embalmed with the appropriate fluids, and on advice by morticians bodies will then be placed in heavy polythene bags, along with preserving crystals, and then into coffins. The coffins will be stored, not stacked, so that undertakers can make regular inspections as to the conditions of the bodies. Should there be any deterioration in the situation, the union has most generously agreed to be sympathetic and to dispose of the bodies.
Since approximately 700 bodies a month come through the city council mortuaries, the House will readily appreciate


the inherent dangers. There is not only the problem of storage but there could also be a serious epidemic if the outside temperature suddenly rose. Should the strike spread to the burial and cremation grounds of religious denominations which make their own arrangements, the situation will become that much more serious. I understand that there is already disruptive action in authorities adjacent to the city council, and this will prevent any possibility of alternative schemes being implemented.
I think it right to mention that very great personal distress has already been caused to the bereaved families and friends. Further, to avoid confrontation between the mourners and pickets, services, instead of being held in cemetery chapels, are having to be conducted in churches elsewhere. The strike offends against the dignity of man and is a horrifying example of man's indifference and inhumanity to the dead.
While the city council is doing all in its power to mitigate the evils perpetrated on the people of Liverpool by this brutal and malicious strike, the situation is clearly deteriorating. What have the people of Liverpool done to deserve these evils that are now being heaped upon them?
The ambulance men will not deal with emergencies, the docks are at a standstill, unemployment is chronic, factories are closing, and now the grave diggers and crematorium operators refuse to bury the dead. It is a chilling story which should fill the people of this country with horror and shame.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) gave me notice this morning that he might seek this afternoon to make an application under Standing Order No. 9.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the effect of the grave diggers' and crematorium operator's strike and the inability to bury the dead in Liverpool".
The hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House a very serious matter. I listened to the exchanges earlier today.
As the House knows, I am not required to give reasons for my decision. I regret that I cannot agree to the hon. Gentleman's application as it does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Parry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has given a distorted and biased account of the strike in Liverpool. I hope to table an application under Standing Order No. 9 to-morrow to put the record straight.

STEEL INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Michael Marshall: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the problem of increasing unemployment in the steel industry arising from the present industrial crisis".
I am conscious that you, Mr. Speaker, have agreed that there will be a debate tomorrow, but I put it to you that this matter is specific; it is a one-off situation. Today we have the news that 26,000 people in the British Steel Corporation have been laid off. This is a nationwide situation, because, in addition to the 15,000 steel workers in Sheffield, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn), about 6,000 workers have been laid off in the tinplate industry in South Wales. There are also lay-offs in Scunthorpe and in Scotland, so the situation is nationwide.
It is also specific because it will have a critical effect on the present earnings position of the British Steel Corporation. Its capacity to break even by April 1980 is now seriously threatened. The earnings of the employees will be sharply reduced, and this will become increasingly difficult for them as the weeks go by unless the strike is settled.
The matter is urgent because, in addition to the 26,000 lay-offs announced to-day, about 10,000 lay-offs have come up in the last four days. The situation is changing from hour to hour. The British Steel Corporation tells me that it cannot give any assurance that the situation will


not continue to deteriorate. It is, therefore, anxious to establish, as indeed is the whole House, precisely what the code of practice can do to help in a specific and urgent situation such as this.
The matter is important. It will be obvious to the House that the problem is not confined to the British Steel Corporation. The principal reason for the lay-offs is the inability of customers of the British Steel Corporation to accept steel supplies, particularly of alloy and special steel. It is therefore the entire engineering industry that is beginning to suffer. The problem is not confined to the British Steel Corporation but is spreading like a deep, dark stain over the whole fabric of British industry.
For these reasons, I urge the Adjournment of the House to discover precisely what the Government can do to help in a specific, urgent and important situation such as this.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) gave me notice this morning that he might seek this afternoon to make an application under Standing Order No. 9.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the problem of increasing unemployment in the steel industry arising from the present industrial crisis".
The hon. Gentleman made a serious statement to which I listened with very great care. He knows that the House has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. I regret that I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

PRICE COMMISSION (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Secretary Hattersley, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Varley, Mr. Secretary Booth, Mr. Secretary Smith, and Mr. Robert Maclennan, presented a Bill to limit the application of section 9 of the Price Commission Act 1977: And the same was read the First time; and

ordered to be read a Second time to-morrow and to be printed [Bill 54].

ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS)

Mr. Secretary Rodgers, supported by Mr. Secretary Rees, Mr. Secretary Owen, Mrs. Secretary Williams, Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Milian, Mr. Secretary Ennals, and Mr. John Horam, presented a Bill to confer power to make regulations requiring the wearing of seat belts in motor vehicles and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 57].

VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS

Mr. Secretary Ennals, supported by Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary Morris, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. Roland Moyle, Mr. Alfred Morris, and Mr. Eric Deakins, presented a Bill to provide for payments to be made out of public funds in cases where severe disablement occurs as a result of vaccination against certain diseases or of contact with a person who has been vaccinated against any of those diseases; to make provision in connection with similar payments made before the passing of this Act; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 58].

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT)

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to bring within the present scheme those old workmen's compensation cases who are not covered by the present Acts, including latents.
There is an old saying that there is many a slip betwixt cup and lip. I want to point out that there has been a slip here—the fault is entirely mine—because this proposed Bill is designed to help latents. I do not know who first used the word "latents", or when it was first used, but it is a well-understood description of a particular category of old workmen's compensation cases. It will


help the House if I give some background.
Broadly speaking, the pre-1948 old workmen's compensation cases fall into three categories. The first category is those who are classed as "totally or partially incapacitated". In money terms, the totally incapacitated are treated on the same footing as the post-July 1948 industrial injury cases, and quite rightly too.
One cannot say with the same certainty whether the partially incapacitated are equally well off in money terms as the post-1948 cases, but I do not think that there is very much disagreement or dissatisfaction here. The second category are those who, unfortunately, in many cases commuted their claim for a lump sum payment. In other words, they settled on the basis that a lump sum payment entirely finished their claim.
It is no exaggeration to state that many of them have forgone thousands of pounds compared with what they would have received for a comparable injury under the Industrial Injuries Act 1948. Most Labour Members, and many Conservative Members, will have heard at first hand how men were persuaded to settle at what we now know to be totally inadequate lump sums. That is part of our working class folklore. The unequal struggle between an injured worker and a rich, powerful and very persuasive insurance company is also known to many.
One of the best parts of the Industrial Injuries Act 1948 was the abolition of the lump sum payments, except for assessments of less than 20 per cent. Even when a lump sum is accepted today, unlike the old cases, there is the opportunity for reassessment should the injury worsen.
I now come to the third category, commonly known as the "latents". Latents are those who, although injured, and in many cases severely disabled, cannot prove any loss of earnings. They include people who have lost a limb, an eye, the sight of an eye or a hand or foot, but because they cannot prove any loss of earnings they cannot claim anything.
A man who worked all his life in the coal industry told me recently about an incident which is still burning in his

memory, although it happened 60 years ago. He remembered a man being carried across the colliery yard and was told that he had lost a leg in an underground accident. He remembers vividly the anguish of the crowd and the sight of the injured man. But what he remembers most is someone saying "Well, there is one consolation. If that man gets better, he will have a job for life".
That is what happened to many injured men at that time. By tradition, they were given certain jobs which by common consent were reserved for injured workers. In many cases, there was no loss of wages and, therefore, no compensation was paid for the loss of faculty. It did not matter that they would carry their injuries to the grave. What mattered was that the law said one had to prove loss of earnings before getting compensation. The latents, as we now know them, could not do so, and that is the way it has stayed.
It will stay that way unless we alter it. I believe that the time to do so is now. I am seeking permission to bring these men within the existing scheme, so that they will be able to claim disablement benefit and be on the same footing as the post-1948 cases.
The Government are sympathetic to the claims of the latents, but they feel that administratively it would be very difficult to bring them within the scheme. The main burden of their argument is that in many cases it will prove impossible to authenticate claims. I agree that in many cases it will be difficult, but not in all cases because many hon. Members will have had the same experience as I—of constituents being able to produce papers and documents of great age in support of one claim or another. In particular, injured workers have kept their papers, and more so those who have a burning sense of injustice. We have an opportunity to remove that grievance.
I rely upon the deep well-spring of compassion that this House always shows in matters such as this. This House has a long history of remedying such injustices. In my short time here I have seen amending legislation introduced to bring in groups of people who previously have been quite deliberately left out of earlier legislation. That was done for what were


considered to be perfectly good reasons. So it is with the latents, and so it was with them in 1948.
Now is the time to continue our proud tradition of bringing in the necessary amending legislation. I hope that the House will give me permission so to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael McGuire, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. George Grant, Mr. Eric Ogden, Mr. Adam Hunter, Mr. Alec Woodall, Mr. Alan Fitch, Mr. T. W. Urwin, Mr. Leslie Spriggs, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Roy Hughes and Mr. Sydney Tierney.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Michael McGuire accordingly presented a Bill to bring within the present scheme those old workmen's compensation cases who are not covered by the present Acts, including latents; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 February and to be printed [Bill 59.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 4

ANNUAL REPORT

"The Secretary of State shall annually lay before each House of Parliament a report on the workings of the scheme in addition to such other papers as may be required to be laid by the Comptroller and Auditor General under Clause 2 of the Act.".—[Mr. Moate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Mr. Speaker has decided that it would be appropriate to discuss Government amendment No. 71 together with the new clause, instead of separately as shown on the provisional list of selection.

Mr. Moate: By way of introduction, I must say that it is with little sense of pleasure that I speak on this subject today. Personally, I feel that it is singularly inappropriate that Parliament should be discussing business of this kind at all. It contrasts starkly with those matters of much greater importance that are facing the nation. I really believe that Parliament could spend its time better than by discussing a Bill of this kind, or even the new clause, worthy though it be.
It seems that the sense of pleasure that I lack is the same sensation as that experienced by most hon. Members, because the House is virtually empty—emptier than it has been for the whole week. That is an indication of the feelings about this legislation; it has no support in the House. The absence of hon. Members today, except for those one or two stalwarts who have been present throughout the months and years of debate on this subject, is an indication of the total lack of interest by the House of Commons in the Bill.
It is worth emphasising that under the Bill at present there is an obligation on


the Registrar to ensure that statements and annual accounts are laid before both Houses of Parliament. That is quite right and proper. But pure financial accounts will be totally inadequate and unsatisfactory. It is important that Parliament should receive from the Secretary of State, who in turn will have received it from the Registrar, an annual report describing the full workings of the scheme. The term "working" is deliberately as broad as possible so that Parliament can receive a greater amount of information about how the scheme might work in practice.
The Minister of State was courteous enough to write to me and tell me about his amendment No. 71, which seeks to achieve the same objective as my new clause. I am grateful to him for that. He told me in advance that he could accept my clause in principle, though he felt it would be better as the subject of a Government amendment. I am not quite sure why a Government amendment should have any greater intrinsic merit than a Back Bencher's amendment. Nevertheless, I shall not quarrel about that.
The Minister also said that the amendment would fit in most appropriately as a new subsection at the end of clause 3, and therefore hoped that I would withdraw my new clause and accept the amendment. I shall, of course, listen to debate on that point. I certainly accept the spirit of what the Minister said and I express my thanks for his courtesy, but I would still argue the case for a new clause because it adds greater emphasis to my point. Perhaps the matter can be decided later when we have heard the Minister's arguments advanced in favour of his amendment as opposed to my new clause.
It seems to me that the case for a new clause or amendment of this kind embodies many of the principal arguments about the Bill itself. What I seek to argue is that the report should enable Parliament each year to judge upon the merits of the many arguments that have been advanced over a long time about the Bill. We should be given a great deal of information on the kind of points that I shall suggest should be covered in an annual report.
In a nutshell, the Bill has been portrayed as an author's dream come true. We have been told that at long last it

will give justice to authors, or will compensate them for the sales they have lost—or imagine they have lost—through the workings of our excellent library system. Against this, I and many others have argued that the Bill is something of a confidence trick on authors and the public alike. In my view, the scheme is nonsense. The Bill is nonsensical and is perpetrating something of a trick on Parliament, the public, the taxpayer and authors. An annual report will allow us to judge who is right and who is wrong.
In support of that, I remind the House that we have been told that about 113,000 authors might be eligible for benefit. To provide for them, the Registrar will have about £2 million at his disposal. We are talking about an increase in public expenditure of £2 million, which I regard as singularly inappropriate at present. I should have expected my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to oppose it in principle. It is a matter of regret that on this occasion we are actually supporting a yet further increase in public expenditure.
The sum of £2 million is to be disbursed by the Registrar—or, rather, he can disburse what is left after he has paid his own salary and the salaries of the 40 staff and all the other expenses that will be incurred by this quango—this quasi-autonomous national Government organisation. The Bill sets up a quango at a time when I thought my right hon. and hon. Friends were opposing the creation of such bodies. However, here we are supporting yet another. That in itself is regrettable.
We are told that this body might cost about £600,000 a year to administer, leaving £1,400,000 for 113,000 authors. It does not take much imagination to realise that that means that the average author, if there be such a person, will receive about £12 per annum if he or she is lucky. Therefore, we are setting up this whole bureaucratic machinery so that the average author can receive about £12 per annum, if he is lucky—and he would be lucky to get £12.
We know that a large amount of the pool will be scooped by the very successful authors who do not need the money anyway. Many of them will not be British authors but will be overseas authors. We shall return to that point when we deal


with a later amendment. Those overseas authors could receive, we understand—although I do not think that this has been confirmed yet—up to a maximum of £1,000.
Therefore, a large number of authors will receive £1,000 and a large number of very worthy authors who are not particularly successful in the commercial sense will receive perhaps £1, £2 or £3 from this whole mighty, bureaucratic scheme which we shall be setting up by the Bill. Even those who favour public lending rights would concede that that is something of a nonsense, even if there were a fundamental case in favour of hand I would argue against that.
Even if the scheme attracts Government funds of much more than £2 million—if it doubles, trebles or quadruples—that average payment will increase to only £24, £36 or £48.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Taxable.

Mr. Moate: Taxable, indeed. Therefore the actual amount received would be much less.
The whole scheme is something of a nonsense. That is my argument, with which the House will have become familiar over the years.
My point is that an annual report will give all the information needed to allow us to judge whether the scheme is working out as I and my hon. Friends have argued, or whether it is an author's dream come true, as the Writers' Action Group and other enthusiastic supporters of the Bill have argued. We should be able to test these arguments, as well as some of those put forward by the Library Association and those advanced against the scheme by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils.
No one should have the idea that just because there is not a great deal of opposition in the House—certainly not in the voting Lobbies, though I hear a great deal of sotto voce opposition—the scheme has universal support. Many authoritative bodies outside the House regard the scheme as a bad one and do not like the Bill.
If we are to test the arguments, it follows that the annual report must be fairly

substantial. I want it to be comprehensive, full and helpful so that if necessary we can examine in debate how the scheme is working and amend it or suggest to the Secretary of State that he should get the Registrar to change it, which presumably might be possible without actually amending the legislation.
I should like to suggest some of the items that I believe ought to be in the annual report. I hope that the Minister will tell me whether he agrees with my concept.
First, the House must know about the actual payments made to authors. I am not suggesting that the report would name the authors and tell us precisely how much each individual author had received. That would clearly be private information. But it is fundamentally important that we know just how much individual groups of authors are receiving, how much the average disbursement is, how many authors have received the £1,000 maximum—if there is to be a £1,000 cut-off—and how many authors have received between £1 and £5 and between £5 and £50. I hope that that information will be easily obtainable. It will allow us to judge whether the scheme is the nonsense that I suggest it will be or whether it is being helpful to authors.
That is very important, for more than one reason. One of the arguments in support of the Bill has been that it might help those worthy authors who represent minority groups. One example that has been given is the Welsh language writer. Unfortunately, according to the technical investigation group, the poor Welsh language writer of a non-fiction work might expect to receive £2 a year. He will not get rich on the scheme.
It will be important to know how the minority groups are benefiting, or failing to benefit, from the scheme. I hope that the annual report will tell us exactly how they are benefiting or not benefiting. That is the first area on which I hope the Minister of State will agree we are entitled to a great deal of detailed information from the Registrar.
I then suggest that the annual report should tell us just how much of the money will be paid abroad. There have been extensive debates about the desirability of introducing a scheme which really means that the British taxpayer will be


supporting wealthy authors abroad without any reciprocal rights from the countries concerned for the benefit of British authors. There are complex and difficult arguments about whether one should pay overseas authors.
The House would like to know how much of our money will be paid out to help poor Harold Robbins and other authors abroad. They might be British residents abroad avoiding British taxation or they might be overseas authors who would never pay United Kingdom taxation only. They might be paying a high rate of tax in their own country, which would simply mean that our money was going to United States residents, for example, and the major beneficiary was the United States Treasury. Therefore, we are entitled to be told just how much of the money is paid abroad and how many £1,000 authors are included in that group.
We are also entitled to information about how much is paid to living authors and how much is paid to the estates of dead authors. This is another matter that we have debated before, and we shall return to it later today. The annual report will be one way of telling Parliament whether it has made nonsense or has done a good job in helping authors.
One of the fundamental arguments in favour of the Bill has been that somehow we must assist the poor author starving in a garret, that we must give authors more money. The fact that the money will be only £12 on average is carefully ignored. One Labour hon. Member gave a splendid example of the sort of thing we hear when he said "We must get to the point where every author has a living wage." The mind boggles at the prospect of the State laying down what is a living wage for every author.
The argument has been advanced that we are to help the living author, to give him a bigger income, an income of which he has been deprived by our library system. But the Bill does not simply do that. It allows the benefit of the public lending right to be paid to the estate of a dead author for 50 years after the author's death. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has often pointed out that the estate of Agatha

Christie would benefit handsomely from the Bill.

Mr. Iain Sproat: No. Agatha Christie's estate would have benefited only if she were still alive when the Bill came into operation—if it ever does.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me. I had not realised that the estates of authors who have died recently will not benefit.

Mr. Sproat: I should be happy if the Minister would confirm my understanding, which is that an author must be alive when his name is first placed upon the public lending right Register. The author might die the next day, and for 50 years thereafter the estate of an Agatha Christie would benefit from public funds.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Moate: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that. I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister of State when we come to that matter. It seems to me an arbitrary and almost unfair distinction. It means that the widow of an author who dies before there is a chance to register will not benefit, whereas if the author were able to register just in time she would benefit. That is a little unfair. However, we shall return to the matter later. The point is that the House is entitled to know how much money is going to the estates of the dead and not to the living.

Mr. Ridley: Ghost writers.

Mr. Moate: The Bill does not contain a definition of authors, so I do not know whether ghost writers come into that category. I suspect that they do not.
As the scheme remains longer and longer on the statute book, the amounts paid to the estates of the dead will become increasingly great. It would be helpful to be told each year just how much is being paid to help the living author, which I think is really what the Bill is all about, rather than going to help the families of dead authors.
We shall already know from the annual accounts the cost of running the quango. We have been told that it will be £600,000, but that figure has escalated considerably since we started talking about the Bill, and it is likely to be considerably more. I hope that the accounts will be very


detailed. That is the only way in which Parliament can expect to keep a grip on the expenditure by such almost irresponsible—in the proper meaning of the word—bodies. I hope that the annual report will tell us a great deal about the number of staff, their functions and how the total expenditure breaks down in detail.
Another matter on which we are entitled to a great deal of information is how the scheme is working in the libraries themselves. I hope that the Minister will agree that the arguments put forward by the Library Association over the years have been very responsible. The libraries' concern is that they should not be burdened, and therefore that the public should not be burdened, with a bureaucratic scheme that imposes a great administrative load upon them. I have had a number of letters from librarians expressing their worries on this score.
Certainly in the initial years, as the scheme is bedding down, the Registrar should give us a clear picture of how the scheme is working. The scheme will be based on a small sample of libraries—I think 72. We must find 72 that have computer installations of one kind or another. The probability is that the Registrar will have to pay for the installation of a computer terminal at those libraries that lack such installations. That could involve considerable disruption of the libraries concerned. Everything will depend on securing the willing and friendly co-operation of the libraries that are to be burdened with all this administrative nonsense. We must know in the report how the scheme is working in practice.
If a librarian fails to co-operate, in the ultimate he can be penalised and pay a fine of £1,000. I am not sure that we want the Registrar to comment on that. We hope that it will not happen, but that sanction exists. I believe that the Registrar will receive great co-operation from the librarians if Parliament is misguided enough to pass the Bill.
Another item of information which we should expect involves complaints. No doubt, with 113,000 authors around, there will be quite a few registering complaints about the amount of money they receive or possibly about their exclusion from the list for one reason or another. As I said earlier, we have no definition of "author". Many people will feel

aggrieved because they have been excluded from the scheme. Again we shall return to this subject later, because we were given to understand from our earlier discussions that many people who were engaged in the production of books would be excluded from the scheme. In passing, I refer to joint editors, joint writers, bearing in mind that we were told that multi-author works would not be covered, translators, photographers and so on.

Mr. John Wells: Fairly recently, I have been involved as a part-producer of a book. There were authors, artists, editors and a whole team of people each dealing with his own speciality, and I was one of those specialists. I was delighted with the modest payment which I received—it seemed a perfectly adequate remuneration for the time that I spent doing the work—and, as far as I know, so were my colleagues. It seems to me that this scheme is nonsense. My lion. Friend is saying that it is bad luck on part-authors, but here is a part-author declaring his interest and saying that he is well content to be left out. I wish that full-time authors were left out, too.

Mr. Moate: I agree completely with my hon. Friend's concluding remark. I suspect that in practice a large number of people will waive any payment which might be due to them. Equally, for every person who is as generous and sensible as my hon. Friend, there will be some other person less so or even perhaps a bit difficult about this and asserting his entitlement to have his public lending right, only to find to his chagrin that he is excluded.

Mr. Ridley: What would happen if someone claimed to be the sole author of a work and then someone else claimed that he had been a joint author and had helped the first person? In that case, the dispute would involve not only splitting the cake between the two but the first person losing his share of the cake. There is a tremendous amount of room for malicious intervention of this kind. How does my hon. Friend see such a dispute being resolved?

Mr. Moate: I think ultimately the Registrar would have to resolve it. It could be that he would have to engage


in extensive legal investigation and possibly have the matter go to court before it was resolved. In such an event, a great deal of this £2 million would be taken up in legal expenses. The Registrar might engage the services of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), and the cost would be very great. But it could be resolved only by the Registrar and by extensive investigation, I suspect.
The point is that a lot of people could complain. I put this forward seriously, because I believe that a great many people have been misled by the publicity surrounding the Bill. A number of people have written to me saying that they thought it was a good Bill because they thought they would benefit from it. I have had to write back saying "I am sorry. You are a photographer. You will not benefit from the Bill" or "You are an editor, or joint editor, and the Bill does not cover your work."
But more often the correction required has related to those writers of what are usually reference works. They are the people whom we should be trying to help. They write books which have little commercial sales potential. They do a great deal of research work and get very little financial reward. Although they do not realise it, the Bill excludes all reference works. All the major reference libraries and all these worthy books which are only seldom referred to and taken out of the libraries are excluded. All those people will feel aggrieved, and I should like the Registrar to tell us in his annual report how many aggrieved authors there are writing to him saying that I was right, that it is a confidence trick, that they thought it was justice, but that it is not. If they get anything, it will be a small amount. But very often they will not get even that.
Another important aspect of the Bill concerns the sample. It has worried me throughout our proceedings on the Bill that the whole exercise will be based on a sample. Out of 6,500 lending institutions in the country, the scheme will be based on 72 sampling points. Although that might work out fairly, it might prove to be grossly unfair. Certainly in the early years I think that the Registrar, has a duty to report to Parliament on just how this is working out in practice.
I am worried, for example, that if there are only 72 sampling points, they may exclude totally a given area and possibly a whole county. Any writer who specialises in the history of that county or who is writing worthy books which have required a great deal of time and research will have his books in libraries which will not be referred to in the sample. He, too, could be aggrieved. I think that we should have explained in this annual report exactly how the sample is working and whether it is suggested that the sample be changed frequently so that it becomes a little fairer in its operation.
That, too, is a matter on which the Registrar should report. But, equally, I hope that the Minister of State will have an opportunity on a later amendment or on Third Reading to tell us a little more about the sampling method. It seems to be an unsatisfactory way of trying to give justice in respect of the many millions of books which are lent and to the 113,000 authors who are expecting to receive some payment.
That is my essential case for having an annual report, and I argue that it should contain all those pieces of information and perhaps many others which other hon. Members may suggest. When the Minister of State argues in favour of his own amendment, I hope that he will agree with me about the importance of this report and its usefulness to Parliament.
One further advantage might be gained from such a report which perhaps could not be secured as the Bill stands at present. I am concerned about the answerability of Ministers to this House on this matter. When we appoint a Registrar and create a new quango to run away with the taxpayers' money, I am not clear whether we shall be allowed by the Table Office to put down questions to Ministers in respect of all the matters that I have raised. If a constituent has a complaint that he is not on the register, or that the amount is not enough, or that he does not like what the Registrar is doing, shall hon. Members be allowed to table questions about it? By setting up a quango, has the Secretary of State removed these matters from the area of Ministers' responsibility to this House?
I suggest that by having an annual report and the obligation on the Secretary of State to lay it before Parliament each


year so that hon. Members may know the workings of the scheme, the Secretary of State accepts that he is answerable for the workings of the scheme and hon. Members will be allowed to ask whether in considering the annual report or the workings of the scheme he is satisfied with this or that aspect of the operation of the Bill. This is not an argument for or against public lending right. It is an argument about the responsibility of Ministers to this House when quangos are created.
As my new clause and the amendment are couched in the same phraseology, I hope that, whatever the House decides to accept, we are making it clear that Ministers are directly answerable to Parliament. On that score, because of the emphasis which I have given to the importance of this report, I should prefer to see the new clause in the Bill. However, if the Minister agrees with my emphasis, no doubt he will ensure that his amendment is regarded by his Department and the Registrar as being of equal significance.
5.30 p.m.
In earlier years we are talking about the non-working rather than the working of the scheme. It will take two or three years to set up this whole operation. We are talking not about an immediate benefit to authors but a benefit which will not start until perhaps 1982, 1983 or 1984. It will take a long time to set up this complicated scheme, even on the basis of statements by Ministers. That is not an assumption on my part.
In the two or three years before the scheme comes into operation there will be no benefit to authors, no payments out—simply an expenditure on bureaucracy. In that time we shall probably spend getting on for £1 million—£200,000 in the first year, £300,000 in the second year and £400,000 in the third year. That amount is likely to be wasted in the next three years on merely setting up the scheme.
In those years we shall still want an annual report. I hope that the Minister agrees that the Registrar will have to make an annual report for each year from the time that he is appointed, not after the scheme has come into operation. I shall be interested to know how much of our money is being wasted in the first, second and third years when not a penny

will be going out to any author by way of benefit. Therefore, I hope that an annual report will be required from the Registrar from the day of his appointment, even though in those first few years—we do not know how long—we shall be dealing with the non-working rather than the working of the scheme.
As I have asserted, the benefit will be pitiful in any event. Many militant authors will no doubt he glad that this measure is on the statute book, merely for the sake of principle, but I suspect that the vast majority of authors will not notice the difference because the whole thing is something of a confidence trick and the benefit will be totally negligible.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I am delighted with the grouping which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, suggested at the commencement of our proceedings—namely, that with new clause 4 we may discuss Government amendment No. 71, in clause 3, page 4, line 27, at the end to insert:
'(8) The Secretary of State shall in each year prepare and lay before each House of Parliament a report on the working of the scheme.'.
I believe that it seeks to do precisely what the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is seeking to do in his new clause.
I think that the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Bill is well known to the House and to the world. He feels that the House should be debating matters other than the Public Lending Right Bill. I believe that this House has a duty not only to debate great matters of state but to look after sections of the public that the House, by a large majority, has decided should have legislation in their favour.
The hon. Gentleman talked about time. I have risen early in the debate to try to save the time of the House. There are many amendments to be dealt with during this evening and tonight, tomorrow morning and afternoon and tomorrow night, or as long as they may take. The Conservative Opposition have a Supply day tomorrow. I imagine they consider it important because of the nature of the business which has been put down. It is a matter for the House, but it must get on with its business. Therefore, it will depend on the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends whether we


debate those important and weighty considerations which have been put down on the Order Paper for consideration to-morrow. Let us see how we get on.
The Government accept the spirit of the new clause in the form of amendment No. 71 to which I have referred.

Mr. Wells: Is the Minister solemnly and seriously saying to his hon. Friends that, from this mess of pottage, he would deliberately talk out tomorrow's business on the great affairs of state and what really matters in place of this load of codswallop? If so, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should, with the Prime Minister, resign now.

Mr. Oakes: I have no intention of talking out tomorrow's business. Opposition Members, not Ministers, are trying to talk out the Bill. Let us get on with the debate and not waste time.

Mr. Robert Cooke: It is not only Opposition Members, but Government supporters, who have strong views about the Bill and who have indicated their intention of coming into the Chamber later this evening. I suggest that, on reflection, the Minister might think that it would have been better had he not made some of his recent comments. We all recognise that this is an important Bill, that a decision has been made in principle that authors should be helped, and that the House wants to come to a conclusion on it. But it would be out of the question to allow this measure to get in the way of tomorrow's debate. The Government would have to find another day if we got to the stage where tomorrow's business was in any way in danger.

Mr. Oakes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Whips will act on the advice that has just been given to the House. It is a matter for them.
As I said, amendment No. 71 will do precisely what the hon. Member for Faversham is seeking in the new clause—namely, the provision of an annual report to the House. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be an annual report. It is not limited in time. It will go on each year.
I accept the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Faversham and his hon.

Friends about the working of the measure in the initial years. Having listened to their arguments, I decided that on balance they were right and that the House should have the opportunity of debating how the Act was working, particularly in view of the controversy over this measure.
The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that I agree with what he said about the broad bandings of information that he said he would require. Clearly we would not want a huge, bulky annual report listing the names and addresses of all authors and the amounts they had each received. However, the hon. Gentleman is asking not for that but for the banding of receipts. He wants the House to be aware of the amounts received by authors in bandings of £5, £5 to £50 and £100 to £200, or whatever they may be. I think that kind of information could be accommodated in the kind of report which would be presented to the House.
The hon. Gentleman asked how much would be going to overseas authors. Again, that is a fairly reasonable request. However, when we come to discuss the series of amendments relating to overseas authors I may say something to the House that I cannot say at the moment because of the rules of order. I shall seek to meet some of the objections which have been made regarding overseas authors outside the EEC. I shall deal with that matter when we come to it. It may be that an amendment will have to be made in another place.
As the new Minister, as it were, in charge of this Bill, I am seeking to be as flexible as possible and to meet some of the points which have been made. I hope that, in a spirit of co-operation, we can get on and make the Bill work successfully, as is our duty.
The hon. Member for Faversham asked why the Government would not accept the new clause and why they should have put down their own amendment. Ministers of all Governments usually say We agree with and accept in principle what the hon. Gentleman is saying. "We shall look into the matter and at a later stage, on Report or in another place, we shall amend the Bill."I have sought to go much further than that by putting down an amendment to be debated with the new clause so that there can be no doubt


about the Government's intent on the matter.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to the Government's amendment, because I do not know of any Act of Parliament which has a separate section dealing with the presentation of an annual report to the House. Where this can be done conveniently, as proposed in the Government amendment, I believe that that is the way it should be done by the draftsmen. I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman's drafting, but draftsmen are paid to do a job that he and I are not paid to do. Therefore, they can do it much more satisfactorily.
The hon. Gentleman places emphasis in his new clause on the words:
in addition to such other reports as may be required to be laid by the Comptroller and Auditor General under Clause 2 of the Act.
I believe that those words are redundant. There is a duty to lay a report before the House, and that is in addition to anything sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Therefore, it is not necessary to include those words.
When the report is provided to the House, it will allow an hon. Member who may have an aggrieved constituent—an aggrieved author who is not on the list or who believes that he is not receiving his full share of the money available—to raise the matter in the House. It is a good democratic privilege and the Secretary of State would have to reply.
Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw his new clause in favour of the Government amendment, which will have precisely the same effect.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I do not believe that I am likely to be the subject of the Registrar's report as envisaged in the new clause. I cannot ever see myself writing a book and, if I did, I would, in all decency, have to covenant any payment due to me under this scheme to the Reference Room of the Commons Library or some such organisation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) that the simple arithmetic to be covered by the annual report-12 million, less £600,000, divided by more than 100,000 people—does not make much sense. It provides only £11 to £14 per person. As my hon. Friend said, that will not make any difference

to any author, however penniless, by tradition, authors usually are.
I believe that, well before the first annual report is made, there will be major agitation for more money to be put into the scheme so that more realistic payments can be made. I expect that the first annual report will contain a plea that the Bill should be brought back to Parliament in order that the payments can be inflation-proofed. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will be here to oppose such a move. However, without such a move the payments will become derisory as time goes by.
In his able opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham did not deal with the point that the Minister should instruct the Registrar in his report to include a section on taxation of authors. Not every author will be so well advised as some hon. Members have been in adjusting their affairs in order to mitigate the impact of taxation on any royalties and profits they make from their works.
I entirely support any author who devises a way of legally beating the tax system. After all, just about the most honourable profession that any of us can follow is to mitigate legally the impact of taxation on our efforts. I believe that a section of the report should be devoted to dealing with the problem of the effect of taxation on authors.
I suggest that, as well as showing the groups into which authors fall for receiving payments under the scheme, there should be another column in the report showing, within bands of about £1,000, the taxation brackets into which authors fall. That will help us to judge whether the scheme is assisting poor authors or, as has been surmised, topping up the already successful authors.
5.45 p.m.
I hope that the annual report will deal with the problem of the author who first has his story published as a 12-part serial in one of the quality magazines, such as "Blackwood's Magazine". What will happen if the magazines are bound by libraries and, instead of borrowing the book in one of the sampling libraries, people continue to borrow the beautifully bound copies? Will the computer system


differentiate between the borrowing of a book and the borrowing of a story contained in a bound volume of 12 issues of a quality magazine? I hope that the computer will be able to digest that and that it will be covered in the annual report.
As I understand the scheme, no difference will be made between children's books and adult books. The more I think about the problem, the more I hope that we shall see in the annual report a list of the 72 sampling centres. I am concerned about the problem of children's books that have local appeal. I should have thought that every child in the countryside of Northumberland—the home county of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and Cirencester—would want to be brought up on the lovely story "The Shadow on the Moor". Unless there is a sampling centre covering Northumberland, how are we to know how much borrowing there is of a particular book? Equally, many children in the West Country are brought up on the story of "The Red Deer". Will there be a sampling centre to cover the borrowings of that marvellous local children's story?
I should like an assurance that the sampling centres will cover such famous local books and that this aspect will also appear in the annual report of the Registrar.
What will be done in the annual report about the position of the Ombudsman? I am proud of the fact that on behalf of the Gainsborough constituency I have not broken my duck with the Ombudsman. Therefore, I view the Bill with suspicion because it will probably cause many of my literary constituents to feel that they have been badly treated. That will be a point of maladministration of an Act. I fear that we shall be forced to refer to the Ombudsman the complaints of authors excluded under the scheme. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the report will list the number of complaints of maladministration which have been referred to the Ombudsman.
I view the scheme with great disappointment. So much could be done in so many other sensible and practical ways without achieving such a bad buy for the taxpayers' money. I hope that the annual report will place a duty on the person making the report to show the

percentage of expenditure on administration as against the percentage of expenditure on productive effort.
The statistic that we have at present is a pretty shaming one. More than one-quarter of the taxpayers' money is going towards administration. If any of us was running a voluntary society and appeared at the end of the year before the subscribers to that society to tell them that we had spent more than one-quarter of their subscriptions on administration and created no benefit for subscribers, we would probably be sacked at the first annual general meeting. No voluntary society would dare to present the sort of report that the Bill envisages. It is an extremely disappointing operation. I hope that we shall spend many hours on it and succeed in getting the Bill into a better form and a more useful shape so that it will have a constructive benefit.
I should hate to have to write the first annual report. It will be a most dismal document and I do not know whether we shall get anyone who is prepared to put his name to it.

Mr. Moate: We are being asked to set up an organisation which will probably be headed by a £15,000 to £20,000-a-year man—not an impoverished author—and I think that that sort of salary will tempt people, even though the annual report is likely to be a dismal document.

Mr. Kimball: The Registrar could always hire one of the aggrieved authors to write the report for him. There would be nothing to stop the Registrar from helping a penniless and aggrieved author, and thereby getting him off his back, by giving him some of his own large salary to write the difficult annual report. That would bring some benefit to at least one aggrieved author.

Mr. Sproat: Would such an author qualify for PLR if the annual report were borrowed from public libraries?

Mr. Kimball: I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will develop that theme later. He poses an interesting problem. It is important that we should look at the ways of reducing the unhappiness that the Bill will create. The new clause would at least provide that we must have someone to prepare the report and we may also find that someone else is employed to write the report. I do not


like the Bill as a whole, but I support the inclusion of the new clause.

Mr. John Lee: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) used considerable ingenuity to spin out his speech to some length. It is obvious that some of his hon. Friends intend to keep us here for quite a while. I do not propose to assist them, unless the discussion goes on to such an extent that there is a hope of endangering the Opposition's Supply day tomorrow.
I was one of those who assisted in wrecking a Supply day before Christmas over the mere matter of £2 billion of extra expenditure which the guardians of the public purse on the Conservative Benches did not think merited debate. It included £284 million of extra expenditure on what is comically called defence, and I was not in the least sorry to have engaged in that escapade.

Mr. Ridley: This Bill involves expenditure of £2 million. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the old maxim should be updated to say "Look after the millions, and the billions will look after themselves"?

Mr. Lee: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that matter any more than I agree with almost anything else he says.
Many spurious points have been raised by Conservative Members, but they have also raised some matters that command attention. The Minister has told us that he is in favour of the scheme proposed in the new clause. He put forward the Government amendment not for tactical reasons but because he believes in it and wants to improve the Bill.
The narrowness of the proposed sampling troubles me. Whether or not too much of an argument can be built on the importance of authors with a limited regional appeal, the proposed sample seems extraordinarily small for us to be able to glean accurate data. I am concerned that there has not been much comment about that fact.
When the Secretary of State spoke on Second Reading, she said that the orginal scheme involved administration expenses of £400,000 out of a total sum of £1 million. Under the present scheme, my right hon. Friend expects the maximum

cost of administration to be £600,000 out of a total of £2 million. That is, without question, an extraordinarily large amount to be spent on administration.
Those of us who support the Bill will not be content until the sum set aside to filter through to the authors is a great deal more than is proposed. I support the Bill because it establishes in principle the right to remuneration in relation to lending, but it is pock-marked with shortcomings. I make no bones about that. I do not want to hold up its progress, but we are entitled to know why such an extra-ordinarily large proportion of the total amount provided for in the Bill is to be set aside for administration.
We shall be discussing later the amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. South (Mr. Sproat) to exclude the estates of dead authors from the scope of the Bill and I shall support that, not because I want to damage the Bill or to assist the hon. Gentleman in his exercise of ridiculing aspects of it but because, with so little money to go round, the amendment will at least ensure that those who are alive to enjoy the money will get a little more.
I know that the projection of estimates is always difficult, but if the sums proposed in the Bill should increase, say, ten-fold in the next few years, I hope that the administration costs will not rise at the same alarming rate as has been indicated by the last two estimates.
I know that, to some extent, I am being a little inconsistent with my strictures about the limited amount of sampling and the data that will be forthcoming, but I do not know why so much needs to be spent on administration. I suppose that administration is bound to take a disproportionate amount of money at the start of any scheme, but there must come a time when the proportion of administrative expenditure will diminish drastically.

Mr. Moate: The situation is rather worse than the hon. Gentleman thinks. The expenses could be even more disproportionate because the figure of £600,000 is an estimate based on current figures while the total provision of £2 million is fixed. The scheme will not come into operation for perhaps another four years and, at the present rate of inflation,


that £600,000 could be more than £1 million and that would have to come out of the fixed figure of £2 million.

Mr. Lee: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's prognostications are wrong, but he is quite correct in saying that we are setting a statutory upper limit on the total amount available for the scheme but no statutory limit on the amount to be spent on administration. That is bound to lead to fears that the amount spent on administration will grow and that the amount available to authors will be diminished still further to derisory amounts.
I have every good will towards the Bill and the intentions behind it. But it is not surprising that some opponents are able to make points against a measure dealing with such modest sums. The Bill exposes itself to a certain amount of ridicule. I hope the Minister agrees that, when the report is forthcoming, many hon. Members will be anxious to see that the amount spent on administration is worth while, even allowing for the fact that a great deal of money of a non-recurrent kind has been spent initially. Otherwise, a lot of people will feel disappointed.

6 p.m.

Mr. Oakes: Can I make clear to the House that the percentage spent on the administration of the scheme and the percentage going to authors will be one of the most important elements in the annual report? I can assure hon. Members that those sort of figures will be contained in the report.

Mr. Lee: I accept that and say no more.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) came to give help and aid in our debate, claiming that he was one of the custodians and guardians of public spending. He witnessed his actions just before Christmas, which led to the abandonment of a Supply day, when £2 billion was being voted. Whether that is a contribution to curtailing public expenditure is less clear. But it is important to get into perspective the figures which will be the subject of these reports.
It might help the House if I put it in a semi-fictional way. I am not an author

and have no interest to declare. I had not intended ever to write a book, but, suddenly, I have thought of a marvellous scenario for a novel. There could be a nation in crisis, gripped by industrial strikes, with a dwindling standard of living and exacerbated industrial relations, caused by some rigid, doctrinaire incomes policy, resulting in large numbers of people going on strike. There could be a shortage of food supplies and lack of transport, with freight held up, the docks clogged, and, if I may take a little artistic licence, snowfall following suowfall, ice building up, railway points frozen, and a population gripped in fear of death and starvation. Into this appalling—

Mr. Lee: rose—

Mr. Ridley: Can I just finish my book? I will give way at the end of the first chapter. Into this appalling situation one would inject the action-gripped drama of the Parliament, which, on a crucial day—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that, like many prefaces to many books, that is rather wide of what we are discussing.

Mr. Ridley: I am coming to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the crucial day, we would find ourselves discussing the allocation of £2 million of Government money and reports on how that is doled out to authors. Anything so trivial would be hard to justify even in fiction. Although we are talking about an average figure of £12 per author per year, the lorry drivers are demanding £12 per lorry driver per week. That puts the futility of the whole exercise into some sort of perspective.
The hon. Member for Handsworth shares the alarm over the lack of profligacy contained in the Bill and the futility of reports which can deal only with £2 million. His conclusion—the opposite to mine—is that there should be much more money in it. The claim upon which he entered our debate, as the custodian of public money, looked torn and tattered by the end of his speech.
The way to improve the ratio of expenditure on the bureaucracy and quangos to expenditure on authors has never been considered in terms of reducing the share of the quango. Hon. Members on the Government Benches see only a means of


increasing the total and providing a big form of leverage for higher public spending. All the difficulties which my hon. Friends have suggested are involved in the report are accentuated in terms of the sum of money we are talking about. I would like to mention some of the difficulties and put them in context.
The question of taxation was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). Is it yet generally known that the public lending right will be treated as earned income for those living authors who receive it but that, if they die, their inheritors or heirs will have it treated as investment income with investment income surcharge chargeable upon it? It seems very strange that a form of income can start off as earned and end up unearned without the form of income changing in any way. Only the recipient has changed. It would be like a dividend or a rent, earned until the person died and unearned when it went to his heirs, which brings it perilously close to the ghost workers' syndrome—

Mr. Wells: When my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) makes over the rights of his book to the team in the Reference Room of the House of Comomns Library, would the 12 of them have to pay unearned income surcharge on their £12 a year, divided between them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that we are discussing the annual report proposed in new clause 4 and Government amendment No. 71.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing me back to the report. It should state how much of public lending right has been subject to investment income surcharge. This could and should be in the report. The last thing that we want to do is to pay the money to rich authors. I understand that the purpose of the scheme is to help poor authors. If we find that they are paying investment income surcharge on their public lending rights, we are doing the reverse of what we set out to do. A strange parallel is the Arts Council, which pays much larger amounts than £2 million. On the whole, the Arts Council pays its grants to people who cannot earn their living by selling their artistic products. They are the failures.
In this case, we will be paying public lending right to those who are most able to earn their living by selling their books—the most successful authors—in greater measure than to the least successful. If this Bill was a true measure to help impoverished authors, the scheme and the report should contain the proposals for paying authors in inverse proportion to the number of books which they sell or which are borrowed from libraries. The man who never has books borrowed at all should receive the maximum of £1,000 and Agatha Christie, or her like, whose books are continually sold and borrowed should get nothing. It would be easy to turn each figure of borrowing upside down and put a figure one on top of it. By that device, one would achieve the social objective which this Bill seeks to bring about. I hope that the Registrar, in his first annual report, will be encouraged to consider that scheme.
One comes back to the question of why we are discussing this Bill in the middle of an acute crisis. The only reason is that it has to be rushed on to the statute book in case there should be an early election without this particular piece of electoral bribery having become law.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.

Mr. Ridley: I am trying to help the Minister. He would find it a much more effective piece of electoral bribery if he accepted my solution of giving nothing to successful authors, whose books are often borrowed, and a great deal to those whose books are never borrowed. That would bring many more people within the scope of the Bill and perform a much greater measure of social justice. If social justice is the order of the day, this is the way to do it.
There is one other matter that I should like to see dealt with in the annual report, and that is the question of sampling. I am worried about what will happen in Wales. If there is to be one sample library there, those who write only in Welsh will find it difficult to get their proper recognition under the sampling techniques. On the other hand, if there are to be six sample libraries in Wales, those who write books only in Welsh will be over-represented in the sample.
Without having much more information about the libraries, the populations they serve and the reading habits of the whole of the country, it will be difficult for us to eradicate the unfairnesses. The Minister, however, will say that it does not flatter very much if there are unfairnesses because, since we are discussing payments of only about £12 or £14 a year on average, the fact that someone may get £1 or £2 too much or too little is not worth bothering about.
That brings me back to my opening remarks, which are that it is nonsense to proceed with this scheme now. It does not hold water. As the hon. Member for Handsworth said, the sum involved will either have to be £20 million, in which case the House would condemn it as too expensive, or it has to be nothing. To have all these problems, anomalies and contentious points, plus a quango costing £600,000 a year, plus the need to go through the procedure of the report and to send for the Registrar to appear before Select Committees, and to have the creation of this administrative bureaucratic burden for the sake of £12 a year for each author, would be to get the priorities wrong.

Mr. Wells: I prefer the Government amendment to the new clause. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has the disadvantage of being unable to call on Government draftsmen, but I like the succinct way in which the Minister has phrased his suggestion. I am not clear on a couple of the Minister's points, how-ever. He assured the House that there would be greater parliamentary control and the opportunity to table questions. In the outline of the novel of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) the frozen state of the railways was referred to. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham represent commuter constituencies. However, we are unable to put questions about the day-to-day problems of our commuter constituents, and that leads me to ask whether we shall be able to put questions about the day-to-day problems of our author constituents. The Minister seemed to indicate that we would be able to.

Mr. Oakes: I said that I did not envisage that questions of that sort could

be put to the Secretary of State. The advantage of the proposals we are discussing, however, is that complaints of individual constituents could be raised in the context of that report, and the Secretary of State would have to answer them.

Mr. Wells: That will occur on a half day or in the middle of the night. It is almost impossible to raise the problems that trouble our constituents when nationalised industry annual reports are debated. The House is fond of the Minister of State. He is a nice chap and he means well, but I am not sure that he is not putting forward honeyed words rather than just looking at the beastly practicalities.

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has asked for an annual report to Parliament. My amend-mend seeks to provide that. More than that I cannot do.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Wells: That reply is much more satisfactory. We know that the debate on the annual report will be as useless as all debates on all annual reports. If this matter conies to a vote, I shall support the Minister rather than my hon. Friend, because I prefer the Minister's words.
The point that has worried so many of us is the proportion of expenditure that will be incurred in building up the quango that is at the basis of this scheme. It seems that the whole of this pyramid is just waiting for the £2 million to be topped up. I therefore deplore the fact that on page 2 the Bill ties the figure down to £2 million. We all know that we are being tied to nothing like £2 million, and that it is humbug to put that figure in. It would have been much better to have inserted the words "in the first year" or something like them. The Minister, like the rest of us, knows that this sum will escalate and represent a burden on the taxpayer, while providing very little advantage to the author.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury made great play of the need for social justice, of helping the authors of bad books and of not rewarding the authors of good books, which is the sort of thing that the Labour


Party's social justice is so much concerned with. This Bill is totally inadequate for its real purpose and is a bit of sloppy electoral bribery.

Mr. Ian Gow: I offer my respectful congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). We would never have seen amendment No. 71 had it not been for my hon. Friend's suggestion in new clause 4. It is perfectly clear that but for my hon. Friend's assiduity and his dedication to the whole concept of the sovereignty of this House and to the scrutiny of public expenditure, and had the policies of the former IMF hero Johannes Witteveen not carried so much weight with my hon. Friend, the Minister of State would not have proposed amendment No. 71.
If I have to choose between my hon. Friend's new clause and the Minister of State's amendment, it will come as no great surprise to the House to find that the lot falls upon Faversham. If I have one criticism, it is that I do not like the location of the word "annually" in line 1 of the new clause. I do not like a word appearing between "shall" and "lay". My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham was a scholar of English. Perhaps he obtained a first-class honours degree, but I think that the words should read "shall lay annually" rather than "shall annually lay".
The new clause will go a long way to establishing something which I believe we have lost increasingly in the last 15 years. That is a convenient period at which to look, because 15 years ago was the start of what I consider to be 11 years of Socialism.
One of the consequences of that is that we have handed over more and more power to those outside the House. The principle behind my hon. Friend's amendment is that the House should receive each year a report on the workings of the scheme.
There is a strong case for saying that the House should receive an annual report upon the expenditure of £2 million of public money. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) was right to point out to the Minister of State that the £2 million is capable of being increased. All hon. Members know that when a figure of £2 million is given the sum will be increased. Everybody

knows that we shall have to increase that figure. We all know that we shall not spend £2 million in the first or second year. It is estimated that when the Bill becomes law—and I hope that it never does—the sum will be increased. The reason why the Government have not proposed a sum of more than £2 million is that they know full well that the indignation of the House, which is sufficiently great against the Bill anyway, would be even greater.
The case for an annual report is even stronger because we know that before many years are out the House will be invited to agree to the limit being raised above £2 million.
Annual reports on public expenditure should be debated not less frequently but more frequently than they are. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and the Minister of State on another achievement. Both the new clause and the amendment would provide that the report must be made to each House. I welcome that, particularly since it is proposed by one of Her Majesty's Ministers.
The Lord President of the Council, who is not in his place, and the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedge-more), who, as always, is in his place, are not enthuseasts for another place. I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Luton, West if he feels that I am misrepresenting his view. It is fair to say that the reverence which is felt for another place by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is shared neither by the hon. Member for Luton, West nor the Lord President. For the Government to move an amendment which actually proposes that a report should be laid before another place annually gives great satisfaction to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. I have no doubt that it creates rather less happy reactions in the mind of the hon. Member for Luton, West.
Page 8 of the Bill shows that it is supported by the Lord President. When the Bill was published, amendment No. 71 and new clause 4 were not included. One might have expected to see amendment No. 71 in the names of not only the Minister of State but of the Leader


of the House. But that is not so. As the learned Clerk will confirm, it would be in order for the name of the Lord President and, indeed, of the hon. Member for Luton, West to appear in support of the amendment. However, those names are missing.

Mr. Wells: Would it be in order for the name of an author, who might expect to receive something out of the kitty, to be attached to the amendment? I am sure that the Leader of the House, as a distinguished author, would want to declare an interest, but he could not do that in those circumstances.

Mr. Gow: I agree that the Leader of the House is a most distinguished author. I have read with great admiration—not once but several times—his massive, two-volume biography of his predecessor as Member of Parliament for Ebbw Vale. I commend the book to my hon. Friend. The Leader of the House is also the literary executor of the late Mr. Richard Crossman, against whom my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) contested an election in 1959. It was a great loss to the House that my hon. Friend was not successful in Coventry, South-West in 1959 because he would have come to the House a little earlier. If he had come here, the right hon. Gentleman who used to represent Coventry, South-West—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is straying a long way from the question of the report on the workings of the scheme, as proposed in new clause 4 and amendment No. 71.

Mr. Gow: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let us consider what might be in the annual report which is to be laid before each House. We can see the intrinsic merit of the joint proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and the Minister of State. I intend to discourtesy to my hon. Friend when I say that only infrequently does he find himself in happy accord with the Minister of State. My hon. Friend has said that he is worried about his own new clause because it seems to reflect at least the same purpose as the Minister of State's amendment. The Bill is also supported by the Leader of the House.
I notice that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has entered the Chamber. I find it a particular pleasure to look at the right hon. Lady from this side of the House. She might turn out to be a distinguished author.
New clause 4 includes the phrase
the workings of the scheme in addition to such other papers as may be required".
That is a very broad definition, and that is why we could have included in this report a list of the most popular authors. That would be a very interesting item of information indeed, because I believe that the report would bear out what I said a moment ago, that the works of the Leader of the House, who will shortly have more time to be a little more prolific in his literary activities, would prove very popular since he is a very fine author. Perhaps the Secretary of State might be able to spend more time as an author. I do not think that she has many works to her credit so far, but perhaps she will have more time for literary activity. These are matters which might be included in the report, though we need not stop there.
6.30 p.m.
One of the most extraordinary features of this Bill is that the scheme does not appear in it. I hope that when the Minister of State replies he will tell us why it was not possible to include the scheme. It is not too late to submit to the learned Clerk a manuscript amendment incorporating the entire scheme, and, if that were done, the House could have a much fuller debate on the scheme than is likely to be held otherwise. One of the reasons why there ought to be an annual report laid before this House, and before another place, is that we cannot make any judgment now as to how the scheme will operate
New clause 4 refers specifically to the workings of the scheme. It is directed precisely at this point and I think that it is wrong that the whole of the guts of this Bill, which will be provided in the scheme, are not published at the same time as Parliament is debating the scheme.
I hope that if this Bill should ever reach another place it will be possible for one of the noble Lords on the Government Benches—possibly the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food


and now Lord Privy Seal, Lord Peart—to pilot this scheme. The noble Lord might be the right person to draft the scheme since he has very few responsibilities. He would be the ideal person to introduce it in another place. I hope that this suggestion will be listened to with very great care by the Minister of State.
As I look at clause 1(2) I find it very difficult to understand. I do not know whether the Minister of State or the Secretary of State was responsible for the drafting, but for the benefit of the Minister I ought to read a part of it. It reads:
The classes, descriptions and categories of books in respect of which public lending right subsists".
That passage describes the matters in the scheme. Yet we are not told, on the Floor of the House of Commons, what is to be the central feature of the Bill. That is all the more reason why we should have an annual report. I look forward very much, as I know the Minister of State does, to debating these annual reports should this Bill ever reach the statute book.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) would make a series of glittering speeches on the annual reports. The hon. Member for Luton, West would, I am sure, make a number of worthwhile contributions. I shall come to the more important reasons later on, but one of the most attractive reasons for voting in favour of new clause 4 or for voting in favour of amendment No. 71 is the pleasure we shall derive from listening to the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. It may seem a vicarious reason for voting for a new clause or an amendment, but I do not think that it is without its importance.
Subsection (3) gives further powers of patronage to the Secretary of State. We are constantly seeing further powers conferred on Ministers. The Registrar of Public Lending Right will not work for nothing, although I believe that there are two Ministers in the Administration who work for nothing. It would be perfectly possible to appoint either the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Minister of Agriculture—he might do it very nicely—to this post as the Registrar of Public Lending Right. But, if either was appointed to that important office, I think

that he would not be able to remain a member of the Administration. It is possible that he might not even be able to remain a Member of this House. The report which will be presented to Parliament each year could and should refer to the way in which the person who has been appointed Registrar carries out his duties. It should also say whether it is a part-time or full-time appointment and deal with the staff of the Registrar.
All those matters ought to be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. That is why my hon. Friend should be congratulated on his new clause. Very surprisingly, the Opposition—and I see the look of consternation upon the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South—offer our incredulous congratulations to her Majesty's Ministers. For the first time since the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) formed his Administration in March 1974, we have the Treasury Bench proposing an increase in parliamentary scrutiny over what it is doing with public expenditure. That is a very unusual event—so unusual that it calls for praise from the Opposition.
I move from subsection (3) of clause I to subsection (4). This is another matter which could be included in the report to which my hon. Friend has referred in his new clause. What are the burdens of the Registrar? I do not think that it would be in order to speculate on whether the Registrar should be the Minister of Agriculture or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We could all think of other candidates, and, I suppose, depending upon what happens, there may be a number of applicants for the post, if, as I predict, it has not been filled by the time the Prime Minister has his own appointment with an election.
Let us look at the duties laid upon the Registrar in subsection (4). He is charged with the duty of:
establishing and maintaining … a register showing the books in respect of which public lending right subsists".
If we are to say that all the guts of the Bill are to be contained in the scheme but that we are not to debate the scheme now, the case for an annual report is overwhelming. I do not know whether my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have spoken against new clause 4. I do not know whether there are any Government


supporters who have opposed amendment No. 71.

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member should have been here earlier.

Mr. Gow: The Minister of State is right to rebuke me for not being present earlier. I am a member of a Select Committee which has been sitting, and the Minister of State knows that it is not possible to be in two places at once.
Seated behind the Minister is his distinguished hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson)—another hon. Member from Luton. We have had the two hon. Members representing Luton present in the Chamber tonight. The hon. Member for Luton, East and I are on the same Select Committee. The Minister must not rebuke me for not being here earlier without rebuking his hon. Friend. What is sauce for Eastbourne is also sauce for Luton, East. The House should be grateful in that it has had both hon. Members representing Luton in the Chamber. It may be that those two hon. Members who now represent Luton could be considered for the post of Registrar or deputy Registrar. When they are not in the House we shall have the pleasure, through these annual reports—not only here but in another place—of considering how they are discharging the duties laid upon them by the House. I do not think that it was quite fair of the Minister of State to rebuke me. He ought to be glad that we came down as soon as we could rather than be complaining that we were not here earlier.
I turn now to subsection (5). This is a strange subsection. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone found some difficulty in understanding it. It provides that the Registrar shall determine
the sums … due by way of public lending right".
Consequently this Registrar—this was certainly the point in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton)—will have great power. That is all the more reason why these wide powers conferred upon him should be subject to annual scrutiny in this House.
It would not have been out of order to have said that Parliament should debate the report. I notice that the new

clause does not say that. New clause 4 does not say that the report will be debated in Parliament. It says that the report shall be laid before each House of Parliament. I suppose that it would be difficult to say, in an Act of Parliament, that Parliament shall debate something each year. That might be thought to be fettering the discretion of the Leader of the House. I suppose that that was why my hon. Friend did not include such a provision. He has done the next best thing. Although my hon. Friend has concluded that it would not be possible to provide that there shall be a debate upon the report, he has said that a report must be laid before each House.
We were considering clause 1(5), before I was interrupted. I was pointing out the considerable powers which the Registrar will have. I suppose that there are hon. Members who can be found to advance almost any proposition. I suppose that there will be some who will be uneasy about the annual report containing a comment upon the activities of the Registrar, as laid down in subsection (5). I have no such doubts. I see that we have the presence in the Chamber of the deputy Patronage Secretary. We do not often hear from the right hon. Gentleman. At least he has joined us, and it would be agreeable if we could have a contribution from him about new clause 4.

Mr. Alf Bates: You will.

Mr. Cow: I do not want to be delayed by the right hon. Gentleman and, therefore—

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Moate: We have just had an interesting contribution from one of the Government Whips. We do not often get such contributions. When my hon. Friend suggested that we might hear from the deputy Patronage Secretary, the other Government Whip on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates), suggested "You will." That is a most significant suggestion. I am not sure whether it was a threat or a promise. We would be interested to know.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend has slightly diverted me from the main thrust of my argument. I hope that I shall not be too


long before I get back into my stride again.
I direct the attention of the Minister of State to subsection (7) of clause 1. All of these matters could and should be included in the annual report. The subsection speaks of details of the "assignment or assignation". What do those words mean? What is the difference? I see the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) entering the Chamber. Perhaps he can help us. I do not understand the difference between those words. That could be something which could be dealt with in this annual report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said that included in the annual report could be details of those who had died. My hon. Friend is a prolific author of extremely erudite articles upon almost every topic. If I have one regret about not being a keen supporter of this Bill, it is that I shall deprive my hon. Friend of any revenue which he may gain as an author from its provisions.
I come now to the central fund. The words "central fund" could have been devised only by a Labour Government. We should certainly have an annual report made to Parliament upon the operation of this fund. Words such as "central fund" are the sort of words which fall readily from the lips of commissars. We should certainly have the opportunity of a report being made to us dealing with what has happened to the central fund.
The central fund is central to the workings of the scheme laid down in new clause 4. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury about the investment income surcharge and the incidence of taxation upon moneys paid out of this fund is immensely relevant. The doubts of my hon. Friend, which I share, about the wisdom of increasing the public expenditure borrowing requirement this year—when in my view it will work out at more than £8,000 million for the year ending 5 April 1979—are justified. It must be remembered that we are without the benefit of the good will of Dr. Johannes Witteveen, who is no longer managing director of the International Monetary Fund. His departure adds to the case for having an annual report.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), who is a prolific author, may wish to reinforce my point. Subsection (1) says that the central fund—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I have no doubt that the report should be comprehensive, but it seems that the hon. Gentleman is making a good Second Reading speech. It is not necessary for him to make a tour of the whole horizon.

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mr. Gow: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury.

Mr. Ridley: I wish to try to get my hon. Friend back to the point that he was making so admirably earlier. Will he consider whether the details of the liability of authors to capital transfer tax on public lending right should be included in the report? I gather that the right will be grossed up and that it will have to be included as a capital asset on transfer on death, which could embarrass the heirs. The heirs will also have to pay investment income surcharge on the income. The crippling burden of taxation on the heirs could make the position worse. Surely the Registrar should consider these matters with a view to ensuring that no hardship falls on the heirs.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend has made an extremely helpful suggestion. The answer is not entirely clear. It would be useful to have the benefit of the guidance of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who will be familiar with capital transfer tax.
It is right that the report envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham could and should deal with the incidence of taxation. If Her Majesty's present Ministers are in office for much longer, the levels of taxation will be so hight that no author will want to receive any public lending right.
If taxation is more than 100 per cent.—it is 98 per cent. now—no author will want to get anything out of the scheme. That will be a legitimate matter to be recorded in the report that is laid before each House of Parliament.
Nor do we need only to deal with taxation. My hon. Friend the Member


for Faversham has wisely referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The difference in substance between my hon. Friend's clause and the Government's amendment is that the Government make no reference to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
What sort of matters are envisaged by my hon. Friend in
a report on the workings of the scheme in addition to such other papers as may be required to be laid by the Comptroller and Auditor General"?
He has envisaged a report upon a completely new area of public expenditure. The Government recognise that we are embarking upon something that is entirely new. As it is entirely new to us—we are having a new central fund, a new Registrar and an entirely new scheme that is not even included in the Bill—my hon. Friend is saying that we need an annual report.
Nor has any restriction been imposed upon the contents of the annual report. That is why it is legitimate for my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury to say that the report could and should deal with matters of taxation, which are of greatly increasing concern to the British people. There will be involved capital transfer tax, income tax and the capital transfer tax that arises upon death.
The sidenote to clause 3 is
The scheme and its administration".
In a way, I find the clause insulting to the House. We are told that the Secretary of State will prepare a draft of the scheme and that the draft will be laid before the House. The Secretary of State will adopt the affirmative resolution procedure. What will happen? I assume that each House of Parliament will have only one and a half hours to debate the scheme. The scheme should be included in the Bill. That is one of the reasons why my hon. Friends and I say that we need to have an annual report on a scheme that the House will never have an opportunity of debating fully. We shall be allowed one and a half hours in this place and there shall be allowed one and a half hours in another place.
I suggested that Lord Peart should be in charge of the Bill in another place. If

the noble Lord were to introduce the scheme under the affirmative resolution procedure, it could be that their Lordships would not be very much the wiser. That could be the position in this place, but that depends on who introduces the scheme.
If my hon. Friend's clause is accepted, we shall have the opportunity of reading a report. It is to be hoped that we shall have an opportunity of debating that report. If you study clause 3(1), Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will ask yourself the question that my hon. Friend asked himself—namely, "Why can we not have the scheme in the Bill?" If the scheme had been in the Bill, part of my hon. Friend's case would have been destroyed. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) agrees with that.
We are to have only one and a half hours to debate the scheme. There is no limit to the amount of time that we could spend each year debating the annual report so wisely proposed both by the Minister of State and by my hon. Friend. However, I hope that we shall have a clear explanation from the Minister of State why the Comptroller and Auditor General has been omitted from amendment No. 71.

Mr. Oakes: The report to the House is in addition to the report to the Comptroller and Auditor General under clause 2(6). It is an addition.

Mr. Gow: Yes, but has the Minister understood fully the wording that was chosen after prolonged and anxious thought by my hon. Friend?
Throughout the lifetime of the Government, the Executive has taken power from the House. If there is one supreme duty of hon. Members, it is to scrutinise the expenditure of public money. That is the purpose of the new clause. As that purpose is one that commends itself so warmly to our constituents, I hope that the House will agree to accept the new clause or, if we cannot have that, amendment No. 71.

Mr. Walter Harrison: (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:

Division No. 49]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Graham, Ted
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Adley, Robert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Newens, Stanley


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, John (Islington C)
Noble, Mike


Armstrong, Ernest
Gray, Hamish
Oakes, Gordon


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Eldon
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grocott, Bruce
Ovenden, John


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmar, Arthur


Beith, A. J.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pardoe, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hannam, John
Park, George


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hardy, Peter
Parker, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hayhoe, Barney
Penhaligon, David


Boardman, H.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Perry, Ernest


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Home Robertson, John
Radice, Giles


Bottomley, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn
Raison, Timothy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rathbone, Tim


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees-Davles, W. R.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hunter, Adam
Richardson, Miss Jo


Buchanan, Richard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callagham, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cartwright, John
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roper, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Sainsbury, Tim


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sedgemore, Brian


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Selby, Harry


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Judd, Frank
Skeet, T. H. H.


Corbett, Robin
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Cowans, Harry
Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamborn, Harry
Spriggs, Leslie


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stallard, A. W.


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lee, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stott, Roger


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Litterick, Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Luard, Evan
Tilley, John


Deakins, Eric
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tomilnson, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McCartney, Hugh
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dempsey, James
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dormand, J. D.
Mckay, Allen (Penistone)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Ward, Michael


Dunn, James A.
Maclennan, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Dunnett, Jack
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Watkins, David


Dykes, Hugh
McNamara, Kevin
Watkinson, John


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Madden, Max
Weatherill, Bernard


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Magee, Bryan
Weetch, Ken


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mahon, Simon
White, James (Pollok)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Farr, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wigley, Dafydd


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mather, Carol
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Flannery, Martin
Mayhew, Patrick
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbridge)
Woodall, Alec


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Woof, Robert


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchem)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


George, Bruce
Molloy, William
Young, David (Bolton E)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Morton, George



Glyn, Dr Alan
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Golding, John
Mudd, David
Mr. John Evans and


Gould, Bryan

Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Body, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brotherton, Michael
English, Mchael
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhew, Victor
Holland, Philip

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 19.

Jessel, Toby
Mackay, Andrew (Stechford)



Kilfedder, James
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Monro, Hector
Mr. Ian Sproat and


Kinght, Mrs Jill
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Roger Moate.


Lloyd, Ian
Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the clause be read a Second time, put accordingly and negatived.

Clause 1

ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after 'on', insert 'live'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 21, in page 2, line 4, leave out from 'subsists' to end of line 5.
No. 24, in page 2, line 16, leave out from 'until' to end of line 17 and insert the author's death'.
No. 25, in page 2, line 16, leave out '50 years have elapsed since the end of'.
No. 26, in page 2, line 16, leave out '50' and insert '20'.
No. 27, in page 2, line 16, leave out '50 years have elapsed since'.
No. 28, in page 2, line 17, at end insert:
'or his surviving spouse has died or his youngest surviving child has become 18, whichever is the later'.
No. 29, in page 2, line 17, at end insert:
'payment shall not be made to the estate of any author who has died until the central fund has reached £10 million'.
No. 30, in page 2, line 20, leave out from '(b)' to 'property' in line 22.
No. 31, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'by assignment or assignation'.
No. 32, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'by testamentary disposition'.

Mr. Sproat: Had I been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the closure was moved, I had intended to say, and will do so now, that I appreciated the spirit in which the Minister of State spoke to amendment No. 71. If the debate goes on through the night, I hope that this pleasant atmosphere will continue.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that dead authors cannot have passed on to their heirs the benefit which their works should receive from public lending right. When opposing a Bill in principle, it is always a problem to move an amendment which intends to improve that Bill. Given that that is the hypothesis on which I have to work, I would certainly prefer the Bill to apply only to live authors rather than to the heirs of authors who may have died after their names have been placed on the register.
I wonder whether the Under-Secretary would clear up a small point which arose during the debate on the new clause prepared by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). This is simply a point of information. He was under the impression that any author whose works were on the library shelves could be eligible for public lending right were they removed from those shelves. On the other hand, my view was that only authors who happened to be alive when the Bill became an Act, and whose names were placed on the register when they were still alive, could be eligible for public lending right, even though they might die 24 hours after their names are placed on the register.

7.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I am happy to clarify that for the hon. Gentleman. In order to obtain public lending right it would be necessary to register, and only those who were alive would be expected or permitted to register.

Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for clarifying that point, since her hon. Friend did not do so at the time.
However, given that I am opposed to the principle of public lending right, it would be a considerable improvement on the Bill were we to insert the word "live". I am slightly torn in advocating this step. Without being too invidious, one can think of a number of elderly authors who have given a great deal of pleasure and instruction down the years.


I hope, and imagine, that were the Bill to reach the statute book, they would be alive to have their names placed on the register. Authors such as Graham Greene and Anthony Powell, who are now over 70, would have public lending right on their works until the year 2025 or 2030, even were they to die later this year, which I hope they will not. The proposition that the Government are putting before the House is extraordinary.
Even if there are authors whom one commends as having given great pleasure, and who would rank high in literary status, there are others whose books sell by the hundreds of thousands and who are at the same stage of life. Barbara Cartland is such an example. I understand that she made a record the other day and sang half a dozen songs on either side of it. It is amazing. She is over 70, but she sings very well. I imagine that her books are taken from library shelves hundreds of thousands of times. She will certainly be one of the chief beneficiaries from the Bill as drafted, and it will not only be Barbara Cartland but her heirs and successors who will benefit for 50 years after she is dead.
Barbara Cartland is an author who makes no literary pretensions, as far as I know, although I recommend to the House the only book of hers that I have ever read called "Vote for Love". It was a rather touching story about a pretty little girl who falls in love with an MP, and it might commend itself to many of my hon. Friends. I do not think that she has many literary pretensions, yet we are proposing to spend considerable sums of public money, not just 50 years after somebody has died but for books of which the highest, most complimentary description can be "mere entertainment".
The public's money should not be spent in that way. Certainly the British taxpayer should not have to continue to pay out on the author's behalf after he has been dead for 50 years. Were it on behalf of some great and good author like the late P. G. Wodehouse, for example, I should be happy to contribute my little bit of taxpayers' money. Had the original Bill reached the statute book, we would have been paying out the maximum amount to P. G. Wodehouse's heirs through the years. I object to the fact

that a lot of the benefit will go to authors about whom one can say nothing more kind than that they entertained their generation. That is as far as it goes.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is getting excited about the comparative merits of various authors, and I have as low an opinion of Barbara Cartland as the hon. Gentleman appears to have, but does not he realise that this is an attempt to tap the main body of the law of copyright, which subsists for 50 years after the death of an author? I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman on this matter, but I believe that the record should be put right. That is the rationale behind this proposal, imperfect and wrong-headed though I happen to think it is.

Mr. Michael English: That is what we are objecting to.

Mr. Sproat: I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman says about the law of copyright. I had certainly deduced that the 50-year clause in the Bill was an attempt to parallel the length of copyright. I fully understood that. But what I object to is the difference between extending coypright for 50 years, when that copyright is paid out of funds from individual members of the public who happen to want to read the books, and extending copyright for 50 years when the funds will be paid by the British taxpayers, many of whom may never read a book by P. G. Wodehouse, Anthony Powell, Barbara Cartland or anyone else. Yet they will be made to pay. Therefore, the difference is between public funds and private funds.
Had we had an extensive Committee stage on the Bill, and if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) had been a member of the Committee, that is exactly the sort of point that we could have hammered out. It is a tremendous restriction when we know that the deputy Patronage Secretary will be bounding to his feet like a lion as soon as this debate has been going for two or three hours, because one feels that one cannot discuss the matter in the way that it should be discussed. Frankly, that is a travesty of the way in which the House conducts itself. We have not had an opportunity of having a proper Committee stage on the Bill. Therefore, within


the rules of order, we are absolutely compelled to try to do on Report what we should have done in Committee.
The hon. Member for Handsworth said that copyright lasted for 50 years, therefore he could see why it applied to public funds. We could have had a very interesting discussion about the essential difference between copyright being paid by individuals who buy books and being paid out of public funds. The hon. Gentleman may agree or disagree, but where we cannot fail to agree is that a great difference must be drawn between funds coming from these two totally different sources.
As well as wondering whether public lending right is the best use of public funds, there is the converse of the argument that authors such as Harold Robbins, who are rich and non-British taxpayers, will also receive these moneys both while they are alive and after their death. We shall deal with this in more detail on a later amendment, but I must say that it is absolutely ludicrous. Even if one grants the principle of PLR, it is ridiculous to propose to give it to the heirs of authors such as Harold Robbins who live abroad. It is ridiculous that we should drain our balance of payments in that way. That cannot be the way to run our affairs.

Mr. English: All the hon. Gentleman has said is perfectly true. Does not he agree that an even worse possibility opens before us, because it is quite conceivable that the heirs of authors who never received PLR, because they died before the Bill had been passed, may receive the results? For example, Agatha Christie is now dead. Yet, if the Bill ever gets passed, her nephew, the inheritor of her estate under her will, could presumably acquire a certain measure of income as a result of something with which he had nothing to do.

Mr. Sproat: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks because his hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth was coughing. But, as I understand it, and as I believe I have now verified from the Minister, Agatha Christie herself does not come into it because she died before the Bill will reach the statute book. None the less, although that specific example does not follow, the principle does. I

take as an example Dick Francis, who is a thriller writer that I far prefer to Agatha Christie. He is still alive. I hope that he will go on living for many years and produce a novel every Christmas. It is absolutely ludicrous that the heirs of Dick Francis, who presumably will already be extremely rich from the royalties which Mr. Francis accrues from the retail sales of his books, will, by the generosity of the British taxpayer, have another £1,000 a year or so added to their income. That seems a totally absurd principle.
I am not criticising the concept of passing on wealth from father to son, or whoever it is, but as a principle that must take second place to rewarding the person who actually creates it, even the rather minor wealth involved in public lending right.
We are told that the Bill aims to provide justice for authors—not justice for authors' heirs and successors. The Bill has been paraded before us as a way of helping the arts. I do not think that it is, but it cannot be said to be helping the arts if a considerable amount of the money available goes to the heirs of writers, most of whom, I imagine, will have nothing whatever to do with the arts. Therefore, in no way at all can it be said that any of the money which goes to the heirs of authors will help the arts.
Furthermore, the more money that goes to dead authors, the less there will be for those who are alive, and the less there will be to stimulate the arts. Therefore, this clause alone completely vitiates the main purpose of the Bill as the Government see it, which is to get justice for authors and to encourage the arts thereby.
One diminishes the sum available by handing it to people who are once removed from the authors. In addition, the whole concept of passing on money is perfectly reputable in its own place, but I do not believe that that concept is one into which public funds should enter. A case can be made—no doubt the Under-Secretary of State will make it—that since one allows royalties to be inherited one should allow PLR to be inherited. That was the point which, by implication, the hon. Member for Handsworth made when he asked whether I realised the parallels between copyright lasting for 50 years and the words in the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
Before I say what I take to be the Government's case on this point, let me revert to the phrase "justice for authors", words which are frequently used by proponents of the Bill. "Justice" is presumably here related to value and worth. It is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said—jokingly, of course—a means of social justice.
There is all the difference in the world between justice and social justice. Either the Bill exists to provide the most popular authors with more money or it does not. If it does not, it is not giving justice.
If we are talking about a branch of social welfare, we ought to have the Secretary of State for Social Services at the Dispatch Box. But we are not talking about social welfare. We are talking about justice.
The Bill cannot be an exercise in the redistribution of wealth, so the only possible defence of the Bill is that those authors whom the public think highly of should receive even more money than they do now out of public funds. That is a ridiculous principle. For any Labour Member to propose that rich people should be made even richer out of public funds is ludicrous. If we tell them that taxes should be reduced so that people might become richer as a result of their own efforts, they baulk at that. The idea that Mr. Alistair Maclean—to take one author who lives abroad—should get more money as a result of the Bill seems about as unsocialist an attitude as it is possible to adopt.
We have to face the fact that we are talking either about justice for all authors, which includes rich authors, or about a kind of social welfare. We have heard from those on the Government Benches that they are seeking justice for authors. If that is so, it must be justice for people who are alive and not for their heirs.
We may hear the hon. Lady say that she has been persuaded by our arguments, but if the Government are about to deny my case I imagine that it will be on the ground that, since royalties are inherited, public lending right should be inherited. The great difference between the two propositions is that royalties accrue from

sales through the retail trade and public lending right is public money. Royalties are usually 10 per cent. of the retail price. So let none of us think that authors are not already doing pretty well.
If a book is selling at £5 in the shops, for as long as the books sells the author receives 50p a volume, which is not bad. That 50p comes out of the pockets of the general public who wish to buy the book, who have a specific reason for rewarding the author, whereas the public lending right comes from public funds. Many of the public who contribute to public funds are given no choice. They may be people who detest the author and never buy his books. The Government decide that they will give authors this extra bit of money, even though the public have not specifically indicated that they want to do so.
We must have priorities in these matters. Even if we grant that PLR is a correct principle and we should like to do something for authors from public funds, we must then say "We are proposing to give £2 million to public lending right. Is that the best way of stimulating interest in literature?" It might be thought better that the money should go into other spheres such as hospitals or provision for old-age pensioners. I shall not discuss that, but it might be thought that the cause of literature in this country would be better advanced if the £2 million were spent on improving public libraries and seeing that they were better stocked and more comfortable places. We have had no chance to examine any of this in detail.
However, let us presume that we overcome that first sense of priorities and decide that we have £2 million to spend to stimulate literature and do not think that the best way of doing that is to pay librarians more, or to make libraries more attractive and comfortable places, with more facilities. Even if we had decided that none of those was our priority, we should come up against a further obstacle. We should have said "We have agreed to spend £2 million for the stimulation of literature on the public lending right—giving the money to authors, anyway." That is how the Bill describes it. One must then ask "Is the best way to assist


authors really to give the money to the heirs of dead authors?"
That is the point on which we are in total disagreement. I hope that the hon. Member for Handsworth, who has indicated that he opposes the idea of giving the money to heirs, will continue to pursue that point and do his best to persuade his hon. Friend that, even within the absurd bounds of the principle of public lending right, she is even more absurdly wasting the very little money that is available.
Without considering how inflation will reduce the value of the £2 million, and without considering the fact—although it is relevant—that the bureaucracy will grow and therefore reduce the amount available, one must remember that the longer the scheme is in being the higher will be the percentage of heirs of dead people who will benefit from it.
I have not worked out the figures. I do not suppose that anyone could do so with complete accuracy. But it does not require much mathematical skill to see that after 25 or 30 years the larger part of the money being disbursed under the scheme, apart from that being disbursed to the Civil Service, would be going to the heirs of dead authors. If that were so, would the Government still persist with the scheme? Does the Minister really think that the British public will agree that over half the amount of money—the £2 million minus the £600,000 for the bureaucracy—should go to the heirs of dead authors?
I do not see how anybody who defends the scheme can defend that. It cannot be defended on the argument of justice for authors, because they will not receive the money. It cannot be defended on the grounds of redistribution of income, because it will be going to people who there is no reason to suppose are not well off. They simply happen to be the heirs of people who were authors. We cannot justify it in terms of stimulation of the arts, because we have no reason to suppose that writers' heirs would have any particular interest in the arts. They might or might not, but it seems an extraordinary, blanket way to chuck money about in thinking that we should be stimulating and helping the arts.
Therefore, I see no grounds on which this part of the Bill can be defended. There is only the totally spurious argument that there is a kind of parallel with the 50 years of copyright on which royalties are based. But there is all the difference in the world between public and private money, and for the most part royalties are based on private money. At least, if it is not private money it is the money of local authorities going to the public libraries which have purchased the books, and the authors receive a royalty on those books.
The following point is often omitted when consideration is given to the libraries' role. Authors benefit in many ways from the existence of public libraries. They receive a royalty on every copy that the library purchases. I think that I talked earlier about the difference between the purchase price and the discount to the retailer. In fact, that is not true. Authors nearly always receive their royalty on the retail price, but the libraries receive a special discount.
To illustrate the absurdity of the scheme, I shall not take an author who is still alive because that would be invidious; instead, I take an author whom I have already mentioned, who might very well have come under the scheme had it been set up when my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was in favour of it back in 1973–74. I refer to the late P. G. Wodehouse, who was born in 1881. I think that his first book was "The Pothunters", which he wrote when he was about 22. He wrote his last book, "Sunset at Blandings", at the age of 90 or 91. He would have benefited tremendously at the public expense, though he was very rich, as he deserved to be. He held joint British and American nationality and lived in New York for the last 30-odd years of his life. Under the Bill, his heirs and successors would receive public lending right on a book written at the turn of the century after the turn of the next century. On the works of a man born in 1881 royalties would accrue in 2025.
It is ludicrous that a period of almost 150 years can be covered by the Bill. It is insane that at a time of severe public disquiet about the way in which we spend our money we should not only agree to spend another £2 million but throw away what could be half the amount left for


authors on people who were not authors. It must be a contradiction in terms that from a fund set up to help authors just under one-third should go on the civil servants who are supposed to disburse the money another third should go to the heirs of people who are already dead and only one-third should go to authors who are alive. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Handsworth nodding agreement.
7.45 p.m.
Hon. Members such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham who have followed this debate for many years are irritated by what happens. There is a serious case to be made. I have worked in the publishing business and have written various books. I know what the publishing business is about. The case, of which certain authors are in favour, has been given endless publicity in the House. But the fact that the librarians and the retail trade are, by and large, opposed to the measure is never acknowledged in the House.
I have described as ludicrous the proposal that after some years only one-third of the fund would go to live authors. There is no response from the Government, so far. Perhaps our eloquence tonight will persuade the hon. Lady. People say "The money must go to the heirs of dead authors, amongst other people, because this is all enmeshed in the rest of the Bill. We believe that the Bill embodies a fine principle and therefore you must take it or leave it." We are not prepared to take it or leave it.
I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Handsworth to our ranks because I did not know previously that he was interested in this subject. I know that au fond he is, as he indicated earlier, among the backers of the Bill. I beseech him to believe that the absurdities that we are pointing out here and in the next group of amendments, about people who live abroad, are among many with which the Bill is riddled.
The heirs of dead authors would continue to benefit from the library system even if there were no public lending right. They would do so for ever and a day because they already receive, through the copyright provisions, the advantages of drawing royalties. If libraries buy new copies of popular books, which they have to do because popular

books become dog-eared and worn, more royalties go to the heirs.
A publisher may decide to bring out a fresh edition of an old work, perhaps of a book by Dick Francis, P. G. Wode-house or Anthony Powell. Anthony Powell will presumably be on the register when it comes into being, but as he was born in 1905 one must think ahead a little, disagreeable though that may be. There might be a memorial edition of his works. That is a series of books that I should like to see.
In the case of a memorial edition, the public libraries might be the prime source of income for the heirs of any dead author. The publishers know that they wilt sell, say, 1,500 sets of the 12 volumes of the "Music of Time" series by Anthony Powell, half a dozen others and a couple of volumes of autobiography, in the case of Anthony Powell. That is a fairly substantial prospect for any private individual, especially if each volume costs about £5. It means that the heirs of dead authors will benefit already, without the help of this public lending right, because the publishers will say to themselves "We would like to do this for prestige reasons and because we believe these works are worth keeping alive and are worth publishing in a fine edition."
Publishers are not activated simply by the thought of making more money. They are activated very much by the thought of keeping before the public the works of an author whom they respect and admire But, of course, they must have regard to the economics of doing it, and it is precisely that regard to economics which benefits the heirs of the dead authors, because the publishers say "We know that we shall be able to sell 1,000 copies of a set of 20 volumes", and that is good publishing if the economics and the price are right. In such a case, the publishers are selling 20,000 volumes which they publish at £5 each. That means that we are talking about a gross turnover of £100,000 on the library sales alone.
It is almost certain that the royalties will be well above 10 per cent. by this time. Royalties on a hardback tend to start at 10 per cent. and, although every publisher, every author and every agent has a different grading, and although obviously the grading depends on the book, I should be very surprised if any


novel by Anthony Powell published in hardback fetched a royalty of less than 15 per cent. If it did, I would say that Mr. Powell needed to change his agent.
Therefore, there is a gross turnover at £100,000 in respect of sales to the public libraries alone at a royalty of 15 per cent. That is £15,000 in one year. No one can say that any heir of an author who is getting £15,000 just out of library sales is doing badly.
I do not object to successful authors and authors whom I admire—alas, there is a distinction—doing well out of such a sale. But since Mr. Powell is not dead—and long may be live—he himself would gain the benefit of the sale which I am hypothesising of 1,000 sets of 20 volumes. If he got £15,000 out of it and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) was saying, had been smart enough to get an accountant so that he did not have to pay the tax on it, that would be pretty good.
I speak from memory. Mr. Powell started writing in about 1930, with "Afternon Men". It is a wonderful book, and he deserves to be making money out of it after 48 years. It is not bad going if, say, it took him three months to write and 48 years afterwards he still gets £15,000. But at least it is fair, and I am happy that he should do so.
What is not fair, especially in the context of having only £2 million to spend on public lending right—and I am not begging for an increase in it; far from it—is that that money should go to the heirs of dead authors. We must draw a distinction between that which it is fair that a living author should get from the fruits of his labours and the fruits to the heirs of dead authors, especially when it is public money.

Mr. Kimball: My hon. Friend was good enough to refer to my remark about good taxation advice. As he knows, the racket is for an author to sell his notes to his publisher so that it is a capital payment. In equity, in this scheme we ought to differentiate between those who have a substantial capital payment by selling their notes in addition to their royalties, and those who survive purely on royalties, because that is the dodge.

Mr. Sproat: That is a very interesting intervention. I did not know about that.

Mr. Kimball: My hon. Friend should ask the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).

Mr. Sproat: Perhaps my hon. Friend will expand on that in a moment. Let me see whether I have him right. Is he referring to the selling of notes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I encourage the hon. Member not to go down that road? It is not in order.

Mr. Sproat: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not know whether it was in order, and I was attempting to discover the relevance of it. As I understood it, in practice it was a dodge by which a living author could keep more money from his works and pass it on to his heirs. Perhaps I ought to describe it as "a method" by which that could be done.

Mr. Kimball: It is very wrong to use the word "dodge". Every citizen is entitled to the greatest mitigation of his tax affairs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is equally wrong, when a ruling has been given, that it is not accepted.

Mr. Sproat: I hope you did not think that I was not accepting your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to explain why I was speaking as I was, because I did not follow my hon. Friend's point and had not come across the method to which he referred.

Mr. Moate: Although I accept that what my hon. Friend has just been discussing is not within the purview of the amendment, we are also discussing amendments Nos. 30 and 31, and they refer specifically to the possibility of assignment. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will direct his thoughts to that aspect. It seems to me to be undesirable that the taxpayers' money should be used, in effect, simply to benefit perhaps the publishers or even a public company because the author has been persuaded to sell or to assign his public lending right together with copyright to a public company in exchange for a substantial sum of money. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that that comes specifically within the scope of one of his amendments.

Mr. Sproat: Indeed, it does. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider developing that argument himself.
I object to public money being given to authors and then being assigned to publishers. We all know that one of the reasons why certain publishers are in favour of this measure, apart from wanting to curry favour with their authors, is that it represents a financial benefit to their companies. They can say to an author "You will be getting an additional £1,000 a year in public lending right; therefore, you will not try to press us too hard in respect of royalties and will be prepared to take 121 per cent. instead of 15 per cent. after the first 15,000 copies."
My hon. Friend is right to point this out, but that in itself is objectionable. I cannot understand how, of all Governments, a Labour Government cannot see that they are putting money into the hands not only of people who are rich already but of private industry. It is a kind of NEB operation by the back door. They do not realise that much of this money which is to be taken out of the pockets of poor taxpayers will go to comparatively wealthy publishers.
8 p.m.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), who is a member of the distinguished Macmillan publishing company, what he felt about this matter. Speaking as a publisher, he said that he felt that it was an absolute load of rubbish. I am only sorry that other duties have prevented him from coming here this evening. Although he takes a rather idealistic view, which he should, unfortunately, certainly other publishers do not.
Therefore, it appears that dead authors will be able to assign their rights not only to their heirs and successors but to publishers. Of course, we accept the general principle of people being able to pass on these rights in their wills, but that principle becomes even further watered down if the heir is not a dead author's wife, for whom there is a good case, his son, for whom there is a less good case, his nephew, for whom there is an even less good case—for example, Agatha Christie's nephew—but his publisher. It really is a kind of incestuous business. Publishers spur authors to

start lobbying the Government, the Government scratch their head and, after five years, say they will do something about the matter and legislate to provide the money, but at the end of the day the money finds it ways back to the publishers, and in some of those cases the sums could be very large.
Had I a pocket calculator, I might be able to work out how long it would take before that part of this fund which is available for authors—I repeat, at the moment it is only £2 million minus £600,000, so it is a comparatively small amount; say, two-thirds—would become owing to dead people. My common sense tells me that after the fund has been going for 50 years, almost half the people concerned will be dead authors.
If those dead authors, as in law they are entitled to do, can assign their rights to whomsoever they please, we shall have the ludicrous situation that the British taxpayer is having to cough up, to pay money, to publishers who are already making money from the sales of those dead authors' books through the retail trade. That must be wrong.
I have already indicated that it is bad enough that the money should be passed on at all. Even if a much larger sum were available, I still think that it would be wrong. But it seems absolutely indefensible when only £2 million, minus the cost of the bureaucracy, is available at any one time.
I very much hope that the Under-Secretary of State will consider this whole raft of objections which we have put forward so far. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham intends to speak on this matter, because he has tabled an amendment on it. The hon. Member for Handsworth has also indicated that he intends to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has not so far been able to speak in the debate because the closure was moved. However, I hope that he will speak on this interesting point.
I want a series of answers from the Government. Are they still claiming that the Bill's prime aim is justice for authors? If so, how can they justify giving such a large proportion to authors who are rich while they are alive? Even worse, how can they justify giving substantial sums


of public money to the rich heirs of authors who were rich when they were alive? Do the Government accept that that is an abuse of public funds? Or are they prepared to accept at this time that, if we are to try to make this bad Bill a little better, one way of doing that is to insert the word "live" and, on a later group of amendments, the words
who are resident in the United Kingdom
or "authors paying British taxes" or whatever phrase might come to mind? On 4 November 1976 we had a debate on how we should define "authors". There were some problems. Indeed, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West suggested some interesting forms of words for getting round that problem.
I do not propose to argue over the word "live". I heard the criticism made of the drafting of the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. I thought that a somewhat semantic attitude was taken to the placing of the word "annually". However, let us not quibble over the drafting of this simple amendment. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will now make clear from the Dispatch Box that we shall not give anything out of this £2 million to the heirs of dead authors. If she accepts that principle, we shall not press the matter to a Division. I hope that she will be able to give that assurance.

Miss Margaret Jackson: I hope to be able to give some assistance to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), although perhaps not as much as he was seeking. He indicated that, if I were able to give the assurance that he sought, he would welcome it. But the welcome that he and his hon. Friends extend is so lengthy and florid that I fear it might not greatly assist us in making progress on the Bill. Normally it would be a great temptation, but in this instance the temptation is seriously diminished. That is a factor that hon. Gentlemen might bear in mind when dealing with later amendments.
Amendment No. 1 was almost cleared up early on when the hon. Gentleman asked me to intervene and clarify the point. However, lest there should remain any shred of doubt in the mind of any hon. Member who may wish to return to the point, I reiterate that it will

be necessary for an author himself to register for public lending right and that the Registrar will not consider the presence of a dead body and someone else speaking to cover registering in person. The person concerned will have to be alive to register for public lending right.
Furthermore, such a person will have to be alive to attempt to assign public lending right. I hope that we can clarify this question of people being alive, that it will not cause hon. Members any further confusion, and that we shall not need to elucidate it further in the debate.

Mr. English: Does "alive" in this context mean like Members of Parliament? In other words, does the author on his last gasp have to be driven in by ambulance to sign on so that his heirs can benefit?

Miss Jackson: We do not envisage writing in any kind of "nodding through" procedure. We merely argue that it is necessary for an author to have his soul still within his body in order to register.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Lady has just said that an author must be alive to register. Most of us understand what that means, but she went on to say that the author must be alive to attempt to assign. She used a word between the words "to" and "assign" and I shall be grateful if she can clear up that matter.

Miss Jackson: I referred to the point mentioned in passing by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South that it will not be possible for a dead person to make a fresh assignment. During his speech, the hon. Gentleman seemed to stray into the realms of thinking that, if one were dead, one might be able to assign the right to a publisher. Let me make it clear that it will be possible to assign a right only while one is still alive. If I inserted words that caused the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) confusion, I regret that and withdraw them.

Mr. Sproat: I do not believe that I said anything peculiar when I referred to assignment. Is the hon. Lady saying that, for example, if an author dies and specifically assigns the benefit from public lending right to his son, that son may further assign the benefits, assuming that that assignation is within 50 years? If that is correct, what the hon. Lady said about assignations—that they cannot be


made after an author is dead—is false. The person to whom it was originally assigned can presumably assign it further.

Miss Jackson: I was seeking to draw a distinction between an assignation and a bequest. I was making the point that it is necessary for the author to assign the right while he is alive. I do not believe that we need to dwell on that aspect any further.
The other amendments that are grouped with this one all have a common aim—to restrict or remove the power of an author either to assign public lending right to someone else in his lifetime or to make a bequest.
The essential difference between the Government and the proponents of the amendments is that we look upon public lending right as property. That is what authors have always requested that we should do. Therefore, we see public lending right as being treated in the same way as one treats property. Conservative Members may say that that is not very Socialistic, but I find it so bizarre and entertaining to listen to them arguing vehemently against inheritance that I propose to store up my reply on that point for future benefit.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to remove from the list in the possession of the Registrar persons to whom the right belongs, leaving the list as a list of books.
Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 27, 30 and part of 32 attempt to remove the right to bequeath public lending right. Those amendments would restrict its duration either to the author's lifetime or to the end of the year in which the author dies. Amendment No. 28 would restrict the duration of the bequest to the lifetime of the surviving spouse or the attainment of the age of majority by the youngest child.
We shall not be accepting any of those amendments. We realise that Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends feel that it is not right that public lending right should continue after an author's death. I point out to those hon. Members that it is not automatic—the right continues only if the books are still being borrowed. As we see public lending right as property, we feel that it is an author's right, and the right of those he nominates, to benefit from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) accedes in amendment No. 12 to the right of bequest, but he restricts the bequest to the wife and children of the author. That means that the Registrar would have to ascertain whether the author is in possession of a wife and children and keep track of them.

Mr. English: I feel that "possession" is not quite the right word.

Miss Jackson: If my hon. Friend wishes to debate the correct attitude to marriage, perhaps we can do that at another time and another place. Unless the Registrar were notified by the author, he would have to discover in each case whether there was a wife and/or children to inherit. He would have to keep track of them to make sure they continued to be in a position to inherit.
We feel that it is simpler to have a cut-off date rather than to link the right of bequest to an author's lifetime or to the age of others.
8.15 p.m.
Amendment No. 29 provides that payments should be made only to living authors and those who are assigned the right until the fund reaches the level of £10 million. I presumed on first reading the amendment, and my impression has been confirmed by the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, that the object of the amendment was to protect living authors against the heirs of dead authors. We come back again to the fundamental question whether the right is a property to be disposed of as the author wishes. We accept that principle, and the hon. Members who support the amendment do not.
I accept that the amendment does not seek to delete the 50-year provision, but it places an arbitrary limit of extremely uncertain duration on when the scheme comes fully into force. We do not know when the fund will reach £10 million, and I think that any hon. Member would hesitate to predict that date. We think that such a provision would introduce uncertainty into the Bill without offering any advantage—and certainly no advantage that authors have sought.
We recognise the case for limiting the period after an author's death in which the right is paid and we are prepared to


accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. West that has that effect.
Amendment No. 31 and the rest of amendment No. 32 would prevent an author from assigning his right to others while he is alive. It has been suggested in many of our debates that some publishers will press authors to assign the right to them. I think that that suggestion is stretching the argument a little far.
If we dealt with the matter as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South suggests, we should be interfering with an author's right to dispose of what we regard as his property as he sees fit. We see it as property and believe that an author should be able to assign or bequeath it, but we accept the argument for restricting the duration of the bequest.
It has been suggested that the period of 50 years was a convenient link with copyright legislation, and that is, indeed, the reason why the period was used. However, we are not totally wedded to it. It was a marriage of convenience and we are content to accept the eloquent arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West. He was told that his representations would be treated seriously. They have been and we accept amendment No. 26, which deletes the 50-year provision and substitutes a period of 20 years. The principle that we adopt is not shared by Conservative Members, but we are prepared to accept some restriction.

Mr. Lee: The rationale of the link between what is proposed in the Bill and copyright legislation is obvious, but, bearing in mind that the purpose of the Bill, which I support, is to do justice to people who benefit from their work, what conceivable justification can there be for dissipating a substantial portion of the very modest sum earmarked for that purpose to an author's heirs and successors? I find that a very unsocialistic principle.

Miss Jackson: I understand my hon. Friend's argument. He approves of the principle of the public lending right but has strong views about the right being bequeathed. I am, however, a little amazed to hear Conservative Members approving of my hon. Friend's views.
It would be of greater benefit to living authors if we restricted the fund to them, but we are not prepared, having taken so long to make even a start on giving authors the right, to place restrictions on them so that they are not able to use it in the way that they may use copyright and bequeath or assign it. We believe that that would be giving authors only half measure. Therefore, although we are prepared to accept some restriction on the time involved, we stand by the original contention that has been discussed at length, on this occasion and others, to retain this in the Bill.

Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that she realises that I would not wish to be churlish by discussing her remarks at great length, but I should like to raise one or two points.
I heard the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) say, sotto voce, that it would be a terribly bad principle to accept amendment No. 26 that if one reduced 50 to 20 the law of copyright would be altered next. I can reassure him. I have discussed this matter with the eminent judge who recently chaired a committee on copyright law. His committee had considered examining the issue but realised that copyright law is not just a small portion of the law of England. It results from an international convention. The international convention, in my view, is out of date. But the relevant conventions stem from the beginning of this century and sometimes before.
It is impossible for anyone in this country to change suddenly the law of copyright. A change would require an international conference, the agreement of about 100 different States and the ratification of those States. Part of the agreement might mean a change in the law of England. But it would be impossible, in international law, unless we acted in total breach of our international obligations, for us to make any unilateral change in copyright law.

Mr. Robert Cooke: As the hon. Member has mentioned me, perhaps I might make a brief intervention. There may not be that much significance in the possibility of a change from 50 years to 20 years, arbitrarily chosen here to suit one hon. Member because the Government find it convenient, having an effect on


copyright law. But it could conceivably do so. The Government, by accepting the hon. Member's amendment, as they have said they will, have removed some of the property that an author would have in life. If an author in life had, 50 years after death, to assign or sell, he has that much property. We are now told that the Government are to reduce that to 20 years, so taking away the benefit a living author would have had.

Mr. English: That was not the hon. Gentleman's first reaction. With great respect, I take exception to an innuendo that he raised when he used the words "to suit one hon. Member." This House has been in existence for 700 years in order that its individual Members might be satisfied by the Executive, of whatever party. The fact that the hon. Gentleman intends, or is likely, to retire from membership of this House is irrelevant. Those who remain are here to make our points of view prevail. Why are we here if not for that reason?
I am grateful to the Minister. She quoted my remarks in Committee. I presume she meant my words in the Committee on the previous Bill two years ago, or possibly she meant my recent remarks in an otherwise unmentionable institution, the Parliamentary Labour Party. Either way, I am grateful.
I do not believe that it is beyond the power of the Registrar to determine whether someone has a surviving spouse or a surviving child. There is a simple process. It just means ringing up or sending a note to the Newcastle social security computer centre, which will have a record because the surviving spouse or the surviving children often receive money directly from the State as a result of having been married or having been the children of particular people.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) entering because he may not realise that the Government have just accepted an amendment which he hoped, as he said in his speech on Second Reading, where I was not allowed to speak, would not be accepted.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: That is why they accepted it.

Mr. English: I had not realised that the hon. Member for Chelmsford was

what I might call a negative ally of mine. I had not realised that he supported my amendments from that famous position in the background which has been referred to in many quotations. I do not believe that it is impossible for the Registrar to determine by way of the social security computer in Newcastle that people have surviving wives or children.
The Minister seemed to imply that the Registrar will never speak to any other Government Department, since in a later schedule it is specifically stated that he must never be described as a civil servant. If the schedule were not pressed in the form in which it is drafted, he would be a civil servant. I hope at a later stage to suggest that he should not be a civil servant for superannuation Act purposes either, which would perhaps reduce the competition for the job.
It seems that the Minister has been convinced that public lending right is a form of property. There is no dispute about that in the House. I should have thought that the dispute was between her advisers who briefed her and hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) and myself who believe that property should not necessarily be hereditary.
I have never heard my hon. Friend or any Conservative Member say that people should not be entitled to the just rewards of their work. Several Labour Members would join the Conservatives in saying that individuals are entitled perhaps to more of the just proceeds of their work than they currently get under our present taxation system. The Minister will be well aware that at present under our taxation system people who benefit most are those, like the Earl of Warwick or Lord Brooke, who neither work nor even live in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Bristol, West seems to be amused at my remarks, but I would think that his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has often defended the British heritage and could not therefore wish to see a tax system which actually encouraged non-resident inheritors to sell it off, thus depriving everyone of it and ensuring that even the Revenue did not benefit since the non-resident pays neither income nor capital gains tax.
If the Minister's brief had been more specific we should have got further. The real question is not whether the public lending right is property but whether it should be heritable property, whether it should be inherited by people who may not even be literate. There is no reason why the heir of an author should be capable of writing a single line. It may be that one would wish, as a matter of charity, to give him some money because, by reason of disability, he was incapable of doing so.
That, however, has nothing to do with whether one should give public money to an heir or, even worse, to an assignee. I say that that is worse because an heir can be of some blood relationship to the author, but the assignee may be merely the man's moneylender. The hon. Member for Bristol, West said that by this contraction from 50 to 20 years the Government were depriving an author of a right that he could assign. Presumably the hon. Member meant that the author could give it to his money-lender and thus borrow more on the strength of 50 years than 20 years.
That is nonsense. The whole argument for the Bill is that an author deserves something for his work. The argument is that an author should receive something for his work by way of royalties on sales and that he does not receive enough from the borrowings of his works from public libraries. It is the only argument in favour of the Bill. The theory is that there is a tremendous injustice to authors. But there is no mention in the Bill of the possible injustice to public library authorities because of the net book agreement which keeps up the price of books to public libraries.
Having done his work, perhaps on his last legs, an author might gallop in an ambulance to the Registrar—like some hon. Members come to vote when the Whips on both sides fall out—to register his interest a moment before he dies. The result would be that 50 years later people who have nothing to do with whether that author was good or bad will collect money.
8.30 p.m.
That is my argument for tabling amendment No. 28. I can see why one might argue that a widow or a child under the

age of 18 should receive income from an author who was that person's husband or father. I do not agree with the hon. Lady that wives are possessions, but one could consider that a widow or child was the responsibility of such an author. However, one cannot argue that those who are not widows or the children of the author but who are adult and capable of earning their own living should be paid by public money because a particular person wrote the world's best novel, for instance. That is nonsense. I do not know where the Government got that idea from.
The Government did not invent this proposition. Many of my hon. Friends have suggested that there should be a public lending right. There is a measure of justice in such a provision. Some rather vicious statements have been written about me by authors, but I have never voted against the Second Reading of any Public Lending Right Bill, although I have reservations about details such as those that we are now discussing.
It is no secret that after the former Bill disappeared two years ago I had discussions with many people who had been involved in its production. I made suggestions, but they were not taken up. I do not blame anybody for that. I do not know why people such as Lord Donaldson, who claims to be a member of a Social Party, advocates hereditary wealth. Perhaps he is influenced by his surroundings. Perhaps he is influenced because about 70 per cent. of his colleagues are hereditary peers.
I should prefer the Government to accept amendment No. 28, but I should be churlish if I spoke longer. I appreciate that the Government have accepted amendment No. 26. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, West will not carp any longer about copyright law. There was never any connection between public lending right and copyright. If there had been a connection, we should have had a public lending right long ago. If hon. Gentlemen want to hear the history of copyright, I could go on for another hour explaining how, in this country at least, some part of it began in the arguments about monopolies in the reign of James I. That would be straining the patience of the House.

Mr. Lee: Even as early as the reign of Richard III.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth refers to the reign of Richard III, whose reign was brief, though I assume that he managed to pass some legislation during it.
There has never been any connection between public lending right and copyright. Nor should there be. Copyright is quite different and was founded upon an international convention. I am sure that many people who advocate public lending right would wish to see the principle which we might be passing into law now eventually becoming an international principle. They might hope for an international convention on public lending right and that 100 countries would agree to it. Meanwhile, there is no such thing.
In my view, it is quite wrong to try to tie this relatively new principle—though there are two or three countries which subscribe to such a principle now—of public lending right to the old principle of copyright, which applies in many countries.
There are arguments for and against the principle, and I do not need to go into them. I am sure that the Chair would forbid me if I tried. For example, one argument might be that copyright and patent law to some extent inhibit the use of new knowledge and invention. There are arguments against copyright and patent law as well as those in favour of them which say that people should get the product of their enterprise. There is no argument at all for tying public lending right, which is new, to such ancient principles as copyright and patent law.
I should have thought that it would be rather better if we did not attempt to do that, because if we seek to tie new legislation to old we tempt courts into following precedents which apply to other circumstances. It would be much better if any court considering public lending right considered it as such and did not attempt to tie it to copyright or patent law.
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting my amendment, though I am sorry that the Government did not see their way to accepting it two years ago. It is rather like the decisions on the audit. Eighteen months ago a committee which I chaired suggested a reform of our system of audit. Ten months ago the Government turned it down. Last Thursday the Secretary of State for Industry said that

the Treasury agreed to it. In a similar way, the Government are now accepting something which I suggested two years ago. One can only be grateful for these small mercies. I wish, however, that the system of government, under any party, worked more quickly.

Mr. Robert Cooke: May I attempt to clear up any difference of opinion which there may be between myself and other hon. Members on the subject of the Government's proposal to reduce to 20 years the 50-year "after death" benefit which is in the Bill?
We take the view that this move potentially takes away benefits which could accrue in life. An author with the prospect of leaving a widow an income of £12 a year from the public lending right fund might well take the view that he would rather sell the right before his death. The family would get more for the assignment if it was a 50-year continuing income rather than a 20-year continuing income.
I suggest to my hon. Friends that perhaps we should not vote against the Government this evening but that we should reserve the right to return to the matter in another place when, no doubt, the Bill will be further explored.

Mr. English: That is a direct threat that the hereditary House will be used to protect hereditary property.

Mr. Lee: Supporters of legislation tend to be abstemious in speaking at this stage in the progress of a Bill to compensate for the verbal incontinence of opponents. I shall not take long, but I am bound to make a few observations. It would be churlish of me not to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for agreeing to accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). The amendment does two things. First, it emphasises the difference between the two concepts of law—of a public lending right as we are now inventing it, and the older, different, concept of copyright.
The amendment also serves to move a little away from an aspect of this Bill which has received a fair measure of criticism and ridicule from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), namely, that we have a Labour Government zealously protecting and enlarging the concept of heritable wealth. The hon.


Member is right, in a sense, in that if someone has a right which he knows will endure for a long time he has something which is assignable, which is, in one way or another, merchantable. I can understand why the hon. Member, as a Conservative, would be minded to protect such a right. That is in conformity with the general philosophy of the Conservative Party. I find it bizarre that the Government should have accepted, even in this modified form, this extended principle of heritability.
My main objection to any extension of this right beyond the life of the author is purely practical. I have already remarked twice this evening that the funds being set aside are extremely modest. It has been calculated, goodness knows how many times, that most authors will receive modest, almost derisory, amounts by way of remuneration. To dissipate a substantial portion of that upon dead persons, their successors in title and assignees—who may be strangers to them, having no relationship with the original author—is the most extraordinary principle.
I have already criticised, perhaps in extravagant language, the amounts of money being spent upon the administration of this scheme. It may be that this is an irreducible factor. It may be that the mere setting up of this scheme is such that it is bound to involve a disproportionately large outlay. Perhaps that is something which we cannot avoid. What we can avoid is a further diminution of the long-promised remuneration for living authors. For that reason, whatever the motives of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who objects to this Bill, as is his right, I believe that it would be no bad thing if my hon. Friend were to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Moate: The debate so far has emphasised the point that this group of amendments goes to the heart of the Bill. The Under-Secretary said that the Government saw that what they were doing was creating a new property right. It is the first time that that has been stated in such clear and precise terms. The debates we have had about the ability and scope to assign and the right to pass

on this right have clearly emphasised that we are reaching the central part of the Bill.
I find it difficult to decide on the rights or wrongs of many of the amendments in the group. It is difficult to know whether we should say "Let us assume that this is a property right and that we must protect the interests of the authors to manage that property right", or "The Bill is intended to help living authors and, therefore, the property right factor should be restricted and limited to ensure the maximum benefit for living authors." It is a difficult decision. The dilemma that I and others find ourselves in is a reflection on the nature of the Bill, which is confused in its principles.
It is difficult categorically to say what should or should not be the right approach. I am tempted by both propositions. The ability to pass on the property right to one's heirs is an attractive proposition. Equally, one is tempted by the argument that the £2 million should be used to the maximum possible advantage of living authors. Both propositions are acceptable and sensible. Unfortunately, the nature of the Bill places us in a dilemma.
If we had adopted a sensible approach throughout the whole measure, we could have avoided the decision that I have set out. The sensible approach would have been to give the money that is available for disbursement direct to authors who are deemed to be in need by a body such as the Arts Council. The council could have distributed the money to living authors in need of help. That would have avoided the legalistic and bureaucratic structure that is evolving all the more as we consider the Bill.
When the Under-Secretary of State accepted the amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) she said that, if she had agreed to limit the benefit to living authors, that would be giving only half measure to others. I presume that the hon. Lady regarded the right to pass on for 50 years as being full measure, so she decided to give three-quarter measure. In effect, she says that we shall throw away 50 years and have 20 years.

Mr. Robert Cooke: It is not three-quarters.

Mr. Moate: I shall not argue the mathematics. We are talking about justice and principles, and suddenly we start bargaining. It is said that 50 years is too long, nil is not acceptable, so we shall settle on 20 years. At least the propositon of 50 years had a logical basis. That was comparable to copyright, although I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West that the proposition before us is not directly comparable to copyright. I accept that copyright has been established for a long time and is bound up by international conventions.
We have before us an innovation. There are few countries in the world that have legislated in this way. It is fairly unusual. However, it is comparable in many ways to copyright. Surely it would have been more logical to go for 50 years or to say that the benefit cannot be passed on. I feel that the Minister of State will come to regret having made the concession. I am sure that he sees it as a concession.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for his reasonable attitude. The hon. Gentleman is genuinely trying to assist the House in a manner that has not been apparent in previous proceedings.

Mr. Oakes: I can see no indissoluble tie between copyright and the Bill. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) involved no collusion. It was the nearest way in which we could achieve what a number of hon. Members want.

Mr. Moate: I certainly see why the hon. Gentleman did what he has done. I think that he will find that it is a solution which will not find favour in other quarters. He may find that in another place or outside—

Mr. English: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to inspire it, but we must take up this threat by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) that the primarily hereditary House which lives along the corridor would wish to defend a hereditary right. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who was momentarily out of the Chamber, may not realise that the hon. Member for Bristol, West suggested that the Government's acceptance of the amendment should be destroyed in another place. I remarked that this was a direct

threat that a primarily hereditary institution should be used to defend hereditary property rights. That is clearly what it is. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and I might differ on the virtues of hereditary property, but I doubt whether we would differ on the virtues of a decision of this House in this sort of matter.

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Mr. English: I do not think that an intervention can be intervened in.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am glad to learn from the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that this is an intervention and not a speceh.

Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as you realise, my passions were aroused by the threat that a lot of hereditary individuals next door should be entitled to prevent the House of Commons from restricting a property right to those who earned it.

Mr. Moate: I often agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, West but on this matter I disagree with him totally. We have a bicameral system, and the other House has its rights and will not be dictated to by this House or by my hon. Friends. I was not asserting that the other place would be in any way influenced by my hon. Friends, or that any threat could be held up. That is not the situation. What I believe is that the other House, which has perhaps rather more independent voices than this House, will look at this formula on its merits and find it unsatisfactory.

Mr. Robert Cooke: All I said from this Dispatch Box was that we would reserve our position in another place. That in no way suggests that the members of my party or any other party in another place would take any particular course of action. That is all I said. It is a harmless thing to say. Whilst I am on my feet, I must acknowledge the notable contribution of noble Lords in another place, notably the Minister, Lord Donaldson, and Lord Willis, to this subject, and neither of those gentlemen is what is called a hereditary peer.

Mr. Moate: On the merits, it seems to me that the argument raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr.


Cooke) was that this proposal would reduce the benefit of the living, and I think that that is a sound point. When we come to the question of the assignment of public lending right, one is talking about a capital sum—or what could be a capital sum, or the disposal of a capital sum—and I would have thought that it would probably be substantially reduced because the benefit would expire after 20 years and not 50 years after death. So that would reduce the benefit to the living. Although there is no fundamental link between public lending right and copyright, nevertheless they presented a tidy comparison, with copyright at 50 years and PLR at 50. I have a feeling that many people would see that as a persuasive point.
I appreciate the Minister's flexibility. In a way, we are now seeing what should have happened in Committee. For whatever reason—it is not my business to go into that now—the Committee stage was brief, and for a variety of reasons we always find ourselves in confrontation on this Bill, which means that we do not get the proper debate, concessions and agreements, and so on, which are desirable on a complex matter of this kind.

Mr. English: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene a second time. He and I and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) were present at the most recent Committee, and I am sure he will agree that it was different from the previous one. Previously, the opponents of the Bill let it out of Committee, when they need not have done, in time for it to reach the Floor of the House, whereas, on this occasion, the Whips of both parties kept most of the Bill's opponents off the Committee.

Mr. Moate: It would not be in order for me to pursue that very far, but may I add this further point? On that Committee we agreed not to delay the proceedings after they had reached a certain point. If we were now able to enter into a similar arrangement, we would have a more reasonable atmosphere for debate on the amendments. That is desirable. One often tables amendments for reasons of opposition. But, although one might be opposed to a Bill in principle one eventually becomes interested in getting the

Bill right. If it has to go through, one would like to see it changed. On such occasions the pressure by Whips is considerable, and when Front Benchers agree it is hard for Back Benchers to influence such a Bill.
One would rather finish the proceedings at an early hour and have short speeches. But few options are presented to hon. Members who wish to change a Bill.
The Under-Secretary said that this is a property right. She also said that the heirs of an author could not assign that right. I do not see how that follows from the logic of what was said, nor do I see it in the Bill. If it is a property right that can be bequeathed by the author to his heirs, I fail to understand why the heirs should not be able further to assign that right if they wish. This is a technical point, but it is one of the few opportunities to make technical details public.
Clause 1 (7)(b), states that
Provision shall be made by the scheme for the right … (b) to be transmissible by assignment",
and subsection (7)(c) says that the right has
to be claimed by or on behalf of the person for the time being entitled".
In other words, the claim has to be made initially by that person, but it does not say that the assignment must be made by the person. It does not limit that. Nowhere in the Bill does it state that that which the Government are now asserting to be a property right cannot be assigned by the heirs and successors. It seems that the Government might be wrong, and I should have thought they would like to make it clear.
The Bill gets to the fundamentals of the argument. I have already discussed the question of live authors. We have had the argument about 50 years or 20 years or nil.

Mr. Oakes: I should like to clear up this point. I gather that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did not say what the hon. Gentleman is claiming. I apologise for being out of the Chamber for a short time at another meeting, connected with the Education Bill. The Under-Secretary said that the author had to be alive to bequeath or assign the right. She did not say that it could not be further assigned by the first assignee. It can be so further assigned.

Mr. Moate: I am glad that that is cleared up and that it can be further assigned. I am not sure whether that was the message which came through before, but I am glad that it is now clear.
9.0 p.m.
I should like to deal with this question of assignment in relation to the principle of the scheme. Again, it seems to me that, while the Government have asserted that this is a property right, nevertheless they are still limiting that right in so many ways that it becomes rather a mangled principle. For example, I understand that it is a property right which will be limited, in an almost arbitrary fashion, by the Government deciding that there will be a cut-off point of £1,000. But if it is a property right, why should an arbitrary decision by Government, the Registrar or the whim of the moment mean a cut-off point of £1,000? I cannot understand why that should be.
It reminds me that on 12 May 1976 a leading article on the PLR Bill appeared in The Times under the heading "Authors Equalization Grant". It stated:
The 'public lending right', in the course of being knocked into statutory shape in the House of Lords, is beginning to look less like the translation into hard cash of a right which common justice warrants, and more like yet another state hand-out—in the form this time of an authors equalization grant.
The advocates of a public lending right (PLR) have established, with surprising completeness in the quarters which matter, the proposition that authors retain a property interest in copies of their books which have been sold to libraries, and that they are entitled to further payment related to the lendings of each book. But having established the propostion they immediately undermined it by proposing a cut-off point to the disadvantage of best-selling authors".
The point I am making is that, if this is a property right, it must be absolute and not subject to these arbitrary decisions of Government. We have not recently had confirmed that this cut-off point will exist, but I believe it to be a pretty established part of the proposed scheme. Confirmation on that point would be helpful. But that property right has been so mangled that we as a House are entitled to question the right of assignment and, indeed, the right of inheritance. That is why on balance I would have preferred to restrict the Bill to live authors.
I find that a difficult decision. I was torn by the argument put by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West on the question of welfare. He wanted to help the widows and children of dead authors. That is a very strong welfare argument, and one can see the sentiments in favour of it. Against that, one can argue that the main effort should be directed towards helping live authors. On balance, I do not think that this should be a property interest. I believe that this small sum of money, taking into account the 113,000 authors that it will have to help, should be directed to helping live authors. That being so, the other property aspects of the argument should also be excluded. These relate to the question of inheritance, bequests and assignments.
The hon. Lady said that she thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) stretched the argument too far by suggesting that authors would assign this right to their publishers. I would have thought that a fairly obvious thing to do. If an author negotiates with his publisher—I have never been in that position, and do not know how it works—I would imagine that he would be very keen to get the maximum percentage in royalties. I would have thought that the publisher instinctively would say "We shall take over the PLR aspect and handle that side of it for you. We shall do all the registration and save you from all the paperwork. In exchange, instead of giving you 7½ per cent. royalties, we shall give you 8 per cent. or 9 per cent." It will become a bargaining factor.
That seems to be quite a sensible thing to do. Indeed, if the author was very successful, he might also say "I want capital now. I shall assign my PLR rights to one of the big public companies which specialise in this sort of thing". I believe that Booker McConnell does this on a substantial scale, and that David Frost's company is engaged in that sort of business.
I do not think it is far-fetched to suggest that many authors will find it advantageous to sell their PLR rights immediately to some company or other, or assign them to their publishers. But I do not believe that that is particularly desirable. As I understand it, the one thing that this Bill is not designed to do is to help publishers.
For a long time I have thought that, if extra help is to be given to authors—I accept that there is a strong argument for trying to help them obtain extra income—the taxpayer is not the person who ought to be footing the bill. He already pays nearly half the United Kingdom turnover of the publishing houses in one form or another. The help should come from the paying public or the publishers themselves, but certainly not the taxpayer.
This Bill is not designed to help the publisher, yet, once the PLR becomes a bargaining factor, the publishing house could say "We shall take over your PLR as part of the package", or "Because you are getting PLR we do not need to pay you 10 per cent. or 7½ per cent. in royalties. We will pay you only 6½ per cent. or 5 per cent." The publishers will squeeze the author, particularly the new author who has not had a great deal of experience.
I would argue very strongly in favour of the proposition that we should delete the right to transmit this benefit by assignment. I hope that the Minister of State will accept that I am putting my case sincerely and that he might later consider an amendment along those lines. I accept that it is an odd position for someone on the Opposition Benches to take. It is the Labour Government who are creating the property right and making it assignable and inheritable. The Labour Party has become the party of property and inheritance. If we have a limited fund, let us use it in the best possible way. I should like to see it used as a grant payable through the Arts Council to worthy authors.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument very carefully and find myself in great sympathy with the points he is making. Does he agree that the people the Bill should assist are those unknown authors entering literature for the first time and that any assessment of contribution should be based upon the need to encourage them? Many of them are good authors who would not be recognised under the Bill, particularly in relation to the hon. Gentleman's point about inheritance. There is a need to encourage writers in this country. We ought to

be directing our minds to those whose books may not yet be in the libraries but who are making a great contribution to our literature. That ought to be a major factor in our consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Moate: That is a very helpful and wise intervention. It has saddened me all along, and it is one of my reasons for disliking the Bill, that it is a misuse of money. Now is not the time to be spending £2 million on this kind of thing, anyway, but, if we have £2 million to spend, the money ought to be distributed by the Arts Council. It could help more directly the sort of author mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—the author who is struggling, the new author, the author who will have very little chance of selling his books or even seeing them in great numbers on library shelves.
If we divided that £2 million between the 630 constituencies, each constituency would receive about £3,000. That money, could help approximately half a dozen authors in every constituency with a grant of £500 each. It would allow new authors to do research work. Every year half a dozen constituents in every constituency in this country could benefit significantly. Instead, what will happen? The man or woman mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South will receive £2, £3 or £12 if he is lucky out of the scheme. That is the difference.

Mr. Sproat: Less tax.

Mr. Moate: The Minister of State probably thinks that our opposition is unreasonable, but I emphasise that this is what motivates me. This is a nonsense, and it will become more of a nonsense if we allow this benefit, paid by the taxpayer, to be misused, as I suspect it could be if it becomes an assignable right.
Having changed the property nature of the right, having reduced the period to 20 years, and having a cut-off point which emphasises that it is really a State benefit and not an absolute property right like copyright, the Minister should go a little further down that road and restrict the nature of the benefit so that it is payable only to live authors.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need to encourage new authors, yet much of the money will go to the estates of the dead. We cannot encourage dead


authors. Someone talked about a living wage for authors. We cannot pay a living wage to dead authors. What is proposed is misuse of the limited sums available.
We have been talking about matters that are fundamental to the principles of the Bill. Subsection (6) begins:
Subject to any provision made by the scheme, the duration of public lending right in respect of a book shall be from the date of the book's first publication".
The 50-year period is subject to those opening words. It seems to me wrong that matters of fundamental importance should be able to be varied, perhaps by the Registrar or by the Secretary of State, without reference to the House. It should not be possible to vary the scheme in a way which affects the matters of which we have been talking. I shall be glad if the Minister will study those words to see whether they should be deleted. It would be wrong if the scheme could be varied in a way that affected questions of inheritance, assignability and so on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has tabled an amendment that suggests that payment of the benefits to the estates of dead authors should not begin until the fund has reached £10 million. I am sure that his motives are worthy and are along the lines that I have just described. But it is appalling to think of the fund reaching £10 million through an annual payment by the taxpayer. It is money that should be paid out by the publishers, or perhaps as a subsidy to publishers. It would be an appalling misuse of public funds if we reached that sort of figure.
I hope that the House will not accept the idea mooted by one of my hon. Friends who said that we all knew that the £2 million limit would be raised very quickly. We should not assume anything of the sort. The £2 million limit can be raised only with the approval of the House. I hope that we shall allow the scheme to run for some years so that we have a number of annual reports before us and can consider the scheme's

Division No. 50]
AYES
[9.16 p.m.


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lee, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kilfedder, James
Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Iain Sproat and


Kimball, Marcus
Viggers, Peter
Mr. Roger Moater.


Knight, Mrs Jill

merits before the House spends a penny more than that £2 million on this dubious scheme, which is riddled with so many anomalies and contradictions.

I hope that it is generally assumed that the £2 million is the limit. I think that it was the Minister's predecessor handling the Bill, now the Secretary of State for Trade, who said that if we thought that the £2 million would be rapidly increased we did not know the Treasury. I hope that I was right to take that as a reassuring comment and that the £2 million will remain the limit for quite a few years.

If under a new Conservative Government we are creating wealth much faster and have more funds to disburse, I would much rather leave the PLR scheme as it is, foolish though it is, and see the extra funds diverted in the way I have suggested—disbursed by the Arts Council selectively. I am not suggesting that I have any great love or admiration for the Arts Council, but it could make the sort of judgments, which are not difficult to make, about helping worthy authors with a substantial sum instead of handing out pathetically small amounts to all authors regardless of need.

9.15 p.m.

I revert to what I regard as the fundamental question. Is this a property right or is it a welfare benefit—and I do not use the word "welfare" in any derogatory sense? It seems to me that, with limited funds, we should concentrate on helping the living, that we should not pursue what the Minister emphasised about its being a property right, and that we should remember that it will be looked at again in another place. I suggest that the Government should take a much bolder look at the problems of assignability and inheritance and accept in principle this amendment and the others grouped with it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 163.

NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ovenden, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Park, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Parker, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Bates, Alf
Golding, John
Penhaligon, David


Belth, A. J.
Gould, Bryan
Perry, Ernest


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Rathbone, Tim


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grant, John (Islington C)
Rees, Rt Hon Meriyn (Leeds S)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boardman, H.
Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hunter, Adam
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Brotherton, Michael
James, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roper, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kllmarnock)


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sedgemore, Brian


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Skinner, Dennis


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Snape, Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Judd, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Clemitson, Ivor
Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cohen, Stanley
Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Coleman, Donald
Lawrence, Ivan
Strang, Gavin


Conlan, Bernard
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thompson, George


Cowans, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tierney, Sydney


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tinn, James


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tomlinson, John


Crawshaw, Richard
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Torney, Tom


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davidson, Arthur
Magee, Bryan
Ward, Michael


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Mahon, Simon
Watkinson, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Weatherill, Bernard


Deakins, Eric
Marks, Kenneth
Weetch, ken


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, James (Pollok)


Dempsey, James
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitehead, Phillip


Dewar, Donald
Mayhew, Patrick
Whitlock, William


Dormand, J. D.
Maynrd, Miss Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Dunn, James A.
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Dunnett, Jack
Morton, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Woodall, Alec


English, Michael
Mudd, David
Woof, Robert


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Young, David (Bolton E)


Evans, John (Newton)
Newens, Stanley



Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Ted Graham and


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. James Hamilton.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, after 'authors', insert
'who are resident in the United Kingdom'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendments:
No. 49, in clause 4, page 4, line 44, at end insert—
'(4A) No payment shall be made to an author normally resident abroad whether or not retaining citizenship of the United Kingdom'.
No. 58, in clause 5, page 5, line 41 leave out from '(b)' to 'and' in line 42.
No. 60, in clause 5, page 6, line 9, at end add—

'(5) This Act shall not apply to any libraries that may be responsible to the Scottish Assembly'.

Mr. Sproat: I should like to say how much my hon. Friends and I appreciate the concessions that the Government are continuing to make. We are pleased that they have brought in the concession to allow the report to be laid before the House.

Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that we have commenced the debate on this amendment without a Minister present to answer the debate. May we await his arrival?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks): Further


to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will see that the position is not as the hon. Gentleman states.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It certainly was the position when the Patronage Secretary raised his ample presence to the Dispatch Box. We are glad to see the Minister back and we have no complaint. We are only sorry that we heard no speech from the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Moate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not complaining about the absence of the Minister. He has been most helpful. I thought it desirable, in view of the intimations given earlier of his intentions concerning this amendment, that he should hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat).

Mr. Sproat: I was paying compliments to the Minister in the hope that it would give him time to grace our assembly once more.
My hon. Friends and I are glad that, as a result of our arguments, there has been a concession on the first series of amendments. The Government have promised, quite properly, that they will lay before Parliament a report on the workings of public lending right if the Bill reaches the statute book.
We do not regard the reduction from 50 years to 20 years as satisfactory, but we are grateful for the reduction because it shows that the Government are accepting the principle, even though they are not going all the way. The Government accepted the spirit, if not the entire wording, of our previous amendments and we hope that they will accept the spirit and the words of these amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) will agree that it is significant that we have had interventions from two hon. Members who have not previously taken part in our debates—the hon. Members for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) and Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). It is interesting that when Labour Members, most of whom would be expected to support the Government, stay in the Chamber for half an hour or so to listen to the arguments,

they agree that those of us who oppose the Bill have a point. That has happened with the hon. Members for Handsworth and Garston, and it demonstrates again what a great pity it was that we were not able to go through the Bill in more detail in Committee. However, we are grateful that the Minister of State is bringing to our debates some of the sympathy and understanding that could have been offered earlier.
I believe that this is a bad Bill, based on false principles, but we are trying to improve it. We have already discovered that the £2 million provided for in the Bill is gradually being eroded. When the Bill was produced, the Secretary of State said that its aim was to bring justice for authors. But the £2 million that was originally allocated for that purpose is being eroded at every stage of the Bill.
I see that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) is in the Chamber. He is my constituent and I can sometimes persuade him with my arguments. I know that he is a good Socialist, so what I have to say should appeal to him. We are setting aside £2 million for "justice for authors", but before one penny of that is disbursed we have £600,000 knocked off for the bureaucracy. That leaves only £1·4 million. Then we have money to be given to dead authors. It was proposed that such sums should be paid for 50 years after an author's death. That period has been reduced to 20 years, but justice for living authors is being eroded again.
We know that the amount that can go to dead authors depends on how long the public lending right runs. The longer it runs, the greater will be the percentage of the £2 million going to dead authors.
In this group of amendments, we are dealing with another erosion—payments to foreign authors. Bureaucrats will get their slice, dead authors will get their slice, and, if our amendments are not accepted, foreign authors will get their slice.
Another erosion has just occurred to me—and I am surprised that no one has thought of it before. Agents' commission will have to come out of the payments to authors. If £1·4 million is all that is available to authors of every sort, 10 per cent. of that will go to agents.


Agents receive 10 per cent. of whatever income an author gets on books, assuming that he uses an agent. Most authors do. So the sum will be decreased by another £140,000.
Foreign authors, such as Harold Robbins living in California, elaborate the case that I am making. The hon. Member for Oldham, East is a good Socialist. Is he really going into the Lobby to vote for giving taxpayers' money to an American millionaire living in California and to that American millionaire's heirs and successors? That cannot be the aim of the Minister of State. This is not a party political point.
Let us assume that the principle is right and it is correct to give £2 million. Is it right, having granted the principle of £2 million for the stimulation of literature in this country, that we should erode that money by £600,000 through bureacracy, by £140,000 in agents' commission, by money to dead authors, which could easily approach half of what remains, and by payments to foreign authors? I cannot believe that that is the right way to stimulate literature in this country.
I recognise the principles which the Minister of State espouses. I know he has been thrown into this debate at the deep end after many years of discussion in the House. But he must surely realise that this is a crazy way to implement the principle. It must be wrong.
The hon. Member for Garston was opposed to giving money to dead authors. But the case applies equally to foreign authors. Instead of giving money to people like Harold Robbins, why not give it to young authors in this country to encourage them to start writing? Why not allow the Arts Council to give it to people which it considers worthy authors? Why not give it to libraries so they can buy more books? There are 100 ways in which £2 million can be spent, without all these erosions, which would actually benefit authors and the people of this country.
In this amendment, which calls for authors to be resident in the United Kingdom, I should like to make two divisions. The first group of authors I should like to rule out—I should have thought this

would gain some support on the Government Benches—are those of British nationality who choose to live abroad for tax or other reasons. I am glad to see that I have at last the agreement of my constituent the hon. Member for Oldham, East. He is a Scotsman, like myself. He will know that there is a millionaire Scottish author called Mr. Alistair Maclean who writes fine adventure stories and who, I understand, lives in Switzerland. Can it be right that the hon. Gentleman's neighbours and my constituents should pay money through this public lending right to make this rich man even richer?

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: No.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman says "No". I hope that he will join me in the Lobby if the Government oppose these amendments. There are many others apart from Alistair Maclean. It is their right to go abroad. I am not blaming them. I congratulate these people for writing so well that they can make so much money. But it is no duty of this House to give them public money.
Authors who live abroad are almost certainly rich. This contravenes a Socialist prejudice not to give money to people who already have a lot. I recognise that there are difficulties. Some authors go abroad for reasons other than to evade tax. I think for instance, of the author Dornford Yates—I believe William Mercer was his real name—who was wounded in the First World War. He wrote a series of 30 or 40 popular novels under the pseudonym Dornford Yates. Because he was so badly wounded, he had to live in France due to the weather in this country. It would be unfair not to allow someone who, for health reasons, was not able to live in this country to benefit. Therefore, extreme cases apart, if a British national wants to live abroad for tax reasons, that is his right, but the House of Commons, and particularly the Labour Government, who complain of being short of funds for hospitals, housing, roads, education and everything else, should not be giving all this money to him.
I mentioned Alistair Maclean, but there is a whole string of such authors. Nicholas Monsarrat is also very rich. If he lived off the earnings of "The Cruel Sea" alone he would not have to do another day's work in his life. The idea


that we should give him public money passes my comprehension. Even less should his heirs, living abroad after his death, receive it.
British nationals resident abroad are not the most offensive cases. There is at least some argument, although I do not agree with it, for saying that British authors who once lived and worked here might be entitled to payment, because at least at some time they paid their taxes here. It could not be argued, however, that someone like Harold Robbins, a man who aspires to no higher a title than "entertainer", who is already a millionaire, lives in the United States and has never paid a penny in British tax, should get substantial sums from the British tax-payer.
Harold Robbins lives in California. So popular are his books that I should be surprised if his royalties are less than 20 per cent. of the cover price. I guess that one of his books in hardback form would sell for £5, or perhaps a little less. If he sold 20,000 copies, that would represent a turnover of £100,000, earning him £15,000 to £20,000 on that print run alone. To say that that man is not getting a fair deal out of his books is ludicrous, and it shows why this Bill is madness. It is wrong to say to such an author that in addition to the royalties he shall receive public money to compensate him for every time one of his books is taken out of a public library.
Each person who takes out one of Harold Robbins' books from a public library will probably buy a paperback version of another of his novels and he will receive a royalty. This man is doing extremely well. Good luck to him—I do not complain—but the idea that all the wealth that he makes from the sale of his books in this country should be topped up by the British taxpayer is absurd. It is wrong that the British taxpayer should give money to an American millionaire. That is the central argument.
9.45 p.m.
There is a long list of successful American authors whose books sell here. I believe that Ed McBain's thrillers are excellent. I do not mind paying 75p to buy a thriller by that author. However, not only will Ed McBain make money out of royalties but it is proposed that he should receive money from the British

taxpayer. The average British author will receive £12 a year, minus agent's commission of £1·20 and income tax. But Mr. McBain and Mr. Robbins will receive £1,000, or whatever the top cut-off is. To give such authors anything is wrong. But we are proposing to give them the maximum amount, and that cannot be right.
Perhaps we have a kick-back from the Americans. The other day I read that Ed McBain was here and, I have no doubt, spending money in our shops. But what happens to royalties due to authors such as Sholokhov or Yevtushenko? How do the Government propose to pay money for public lending rights to authors who are resident in the Soviet Union? I know that the Soviet Union has signed various copyright treaties, but I do not know whether British authors whose books are sold in the Soviet Union receive royalties, let alone a public lending right. This is an extraordinary drain on our balance of payments. It is a one-way street.

Mr. Robert Adley: I hope that my hon. Friend can enlighten me. If a Soviet author finds that a local authority in the Clyde valley or South Wales, for instance, particularly likes to buy his books to stock up the local library, is it not possible that books could be purchased from ratepayers' funds by local authorities whose political views are aligned to those of certain authors in the Soviet Union? Could not there be a cosy arrangement which could bring benefit to the author and to members of those local authorities which shared his views?

Mr. Sproat: That is a possibility, but it is not particularly likely. A number of conditions would have to be fulfilled. A batty local authority would have to be in charge of one of the sample libraries on which the public lending right was based. Someone would have to go in and out of the library every day, taking out books and returning them so that every time a Russian author's book was taken out it was registered on a computer.
None the less, it is true that the whole system is open to fraud. After all, when it becomes known which are the 70 libraries, there will be nothing to stop Mr. Harold Robbins from going to my hon. Friend and saying "For you, pal, there


is 5 per cent. on everything I get for your going into these libraries and taking the books off the shelves." There is no way in which that could be stopped. I do not say that that is particularly likely, but, just as normal authors urge their friends to buy books from the shops so that they get a royalty on the retail price, no doubt foreign authors could do exactly the same thing. Although the precise example regarding foreign authors which my hon. Friend cited is not likely, none the less it points out the way in which the door can be opened to fraud.
The interesting feature here is reciprocity. It seems that the only conceivable circumstance in which it would be justifiable for British taxpayers, through public lending right, to give money to Harold Robbins would be if British authors' works on the shelves of public libraries in California were to get dollars just as Mr. Robbins's works get pounds. Otherwise it will be a one-way drain on our balance of payments, with endless amounts of money going out and nothing coming back.
The Soviet Union presents us with an opportunity. Ever since the Helsinki agreement was signed on 1 August 1975 there has been an odd situation. Although the number of British books available in the Soviet Union is not very large, the number of titles of British books available there is very much greater than the number of Soviet titles available in this country. I think that the hon. Member for Oldham, East will confirm that, because apart from being one of my constituents he also knows a great deal about the Helsinki agreement. One of the results of basket 3 of the Helsinki agreement was that both sides agreed to an increase in the free flow of ideas and information. One of the ways in which the Soviet Union has undoubtedly implemented this agreement is by buying more British titles. There may be only two of each British title in Russia, but as they have thousands of public libraries there are many British titles there.
If the Minister of State can assure me that the Soviet Union has agreed to a reciprocal public lending right, so that any British author whose books are on the shelves of the public libraries of Omsk, Tomsk, Leningrad or Moscow will receive a payment as a result of a

Soviet public lending right, similar to that which Yevtushenko or Sholokhov receive when their books are taken from public library shelves in Britain, I might say that reciprocity at least went some of the way down the road.
The trouble with reciprocity, however, even if it is granted by certain countries, is that it does not work all the way, because there are many countries which do not have such a right. An interesting fact is that one of the progenitors of this Bill is the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins)—he is not in the Chamber at the moment though I make no complaint about that. He is always telling us that we should support this Bill because it is a sign of our cultural awareness. He says that if we want to be regarded seriously as a country of culture we should give this public lending right to authors, as if authors were our only visible cultural symbol, and because this way of rewarding them is a way of proving that we are cultured.
We do not have public lending right, but let us take the two countries in Europe which cannot, whatever else may be said about them, be called uncultured, namely, France and Italy. Whatever else may be said about France and Italy, they both have culture coming out of their ears. That is for sure. But they do not have a public lending right.
Even if the Minister were to agree that reciprocity was a good principle, and that without it foreign authors should not be rewarded, he would be unable to do what he would like to do because there is no public lending system in France. The provisions of the Bill would not be able to operate.
Let us suppose that Francoise Sagan were to write a book and that it were taken out by hundreds of her admirers in this country. Certainly she had many admirers in this country, and for all I know she still has them. The pounds would flow to her across the Channel. If, however, Dick Francis or Barbara Cartland—if that is not too unfair a comparison to make with Francoise Sagan—were to write a book which was popular in France, there would be no money coming for them across the Channel.
Although we may agree that reciprocity is a good route to follow so as to get us out of this dilemma, it is not one which


we can pursue because so few countries have a lending right. Perhaps the Minister of State can tell us which countries have that right. I know that it operates in certain Scandinavian countries. However, bearing in mind the number of Scandinavian books taken from the shelves of our libraries, I do not believe that reciprocity would be much use to us. I believe that West Germany has a system. I am not sure whether it is in operation, because on 4 November 1976 the Under-Secretary told us that West Germany had a system but that it was not then in operation. Australia has such a right. I do not know how many great Australian authors there are. There are Patrick White and one or two others—

Mr. Richard Buchanan: The hon. Gentleman will recall that on Second Reading I mentioned the Swedish public lending right and reported that Swedish authors had descended on libraries, taken their books from the shelves, acted like present-day strikers, and sought to put up the public lending right.

Mr. Sproat: I recall that and I had hoped to hear the hon. Member deal with it further in Committee. However, he did not serve on the Committee. That serves to show the type of path down which we can progress without meaning to, once we embark upon a Bill which is essentially based upon false principles. A book, once bought by a public library, becomes the property of that library, just as when I buy a book, whether by a foreign or a British author, living or dead, it becomes my property. When it is said that an author retains a right of property in such a book we shall, sooner or later, go down the path described by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springbum (Mr. Buchanan) when authors seek to hold the public to ransom.
The essential maxim of this amendment is that no money should be paid to foreign authors unless there is reciprocity. Since France does not have a public lending right, no French authors with books on British shelves should receive any money as a result of this Bill. When the report which the Minister has said he intends should be brought before the House annually is produced, it will be interesting to see whether the reciprocal arrangements with other countries—for

example, Australia—are resulting in cash flowing to this country as well as flowing from it.

Mr. John Cope: I was interested in something my hon. Friend said, to the effect that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) had suggested that in some way the Bill would be regarded as a symbol of the extent to which we were a cultured country. Is it suggested that it is symbolic of this country's culture that we should pay £1,000 a year to Mr. Robbins, for example? If that is seriously suggested by the hon. Gentleman, does my hon. Friend support that theory?

Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should not want it to be thought that I was quoting directly the hon. Member for Putney. In no sentence did he say—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Public Lending Right Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Sproat: I do not want to give the impression that I have quoted the exact words of the hon. Gentleman. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who sat through many debates in Committee, will agree that if ever I or any other hon. Member advanced an argument of substance—for example, "Surely it is madness to pay Harold Robbins £1,000"—the hon. Gentleman fell back on the defence "The Bill will improve the cultural climate of our country." There is no doubt that he regards the Bill as a sort of cultural virility symbol. If someone is in favour of the Bill, he considers him cultured. If someone is against it, he considers him a philistine. That is the division that he has been making. I am amazed that he is not in the Chamber tonight. He used to claim to be the father of the Bill.

Mr. Adley: The judgment of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) has always been in grave doubt. He it was who said that Concorde would never fly


and that, if it did, no one would ever want to fly in it.

Mr. Sproat: I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would not allow me to use that example, vivid as it is.

Mr. Moate: It appeals to me.

Mr. Sproat: I remind the House that when talking about culture the hon. Member for Putney stated in a memorable memorandum that any work of 800 pages must be worth more than a mere essay. In that one remark he must stand damned for ever as a philistine of the deepest hue. That was the man who dared to criticise us—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) is resident in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sproat: I apologise Mr. Speaker.
I turn to a subject that will prove even less fascinating to hon. Members. Some exceptions may be the hon. Members for Springburn and for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter). Rather curiously, the Scottish Assembly has been linked with authors living abroad. I appreciate the link, although I had not thought about it until this moment. Amendment No. 60 seeks to remove from the Bill any libraries that may come under any future possible control by a Scottish Assembly. I find myself in a curious position, as the House will know that I consider the idea of a Scottish Assembly to be a load of rubbish. If the Minister of State will adjourn the House now and delay the Bill until after 1 March, when the referendum takes place, I shall willingly withdraw the amendment. Let us assume that it is just possible that there will be a "Yes" vote in the Scottish referendum. I should say that there is a 50–50 chance at present. Let us assume that there was—

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: "Let us assume that there were."

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is right; I should have used the subjunctive. The Scottish Assembly always throws me off balance, it being such an appalling idea.
If there is a Scottish Assembly, under the Act the Assembly will have power over all libraries in Scotland. It follows

that the power to require libraries to take part in the sampling procedures to assess public lending right will leave the House and go to the Assembly. In logic it is surely correct, much as I abhor the idea, that in the Bill we must make a small amendment to the Scotland Act.
What would the result be of passing over to a Scottish Assembly the power to run public lending right in Scotland? Before I answer my own question, I ask what would be the result of not passing it over. If the Government reject the amendment to remove from the Bill the libraries which would come under the control of an Assembly, we shall immediately have a conflict between this House and a Scottish Assembly, if there is one, over what should be done over public lending right. I agree that that would be amongst the most trifling and piffling of all the confrontations that would happen if a Scottish Assembly were to be set up. But undoubtedly, just as setting up a Scottish Assembly would be a recipe for constitutional chaos, so the mere existence of the words "libraries in Scotland" in this Bill would provide exactly such a small cause of conflict between this House and such an Assembly. Therefore, if we do not remove those words we shall be building into the Bill, and, at one remove, into the Scotland Act, a cause of conflict.
What would be the result if we were to remove all libraries which would come under the control of a Scottish Assembly from the Bill, as I propose? First, if a Scottish Assembly had as much sense on this matter as I and other hon. Members have, no doubt it would be able to say "We will not operate a public lending right in Scotland", and it would be able to remove Scotland, as it were, from the whole PLR system. To the people of Scotland, no doubt that would be a benefit, but I am not parading it as an advantage or a disadvantage at this stage. I am merely saying that that is what would happen.
If the Secretary of State for Trade, who pushed through the Scotland Act—a load of rubbish—and was earlier in charge of this Bill—another load of rubbish—had still been responsible for the Bill, he might have tried to harmonise the two. But he is not, so we have this essential element of disharmony right in the middle of the Bill. One hopes that if there is a Scottish Assembly it will instruct its libraries not


to co-operate. But it could decide to conduct a public lending right of its own. That would be building horror on horror. To have a Scottish Assembly and then a Scottish Assembly with its own PLR system would be a nightmare. But it is a situation that we will have to face if the Scottish people are foolish enough to have an Assembly and the Government do not accept my amendment.

Mr. Cope: I apologise for interrupeting my hon. Friend again, but, if his amendment on the Scottish Assembly were to be accepted by the Government, and assuming that the Assembly came into being and were to go against PLR, thereby not having PLR in Scotland although England went ahead—presumably Wales will make its own decision—how does that square with amendment No. 2 concerning authors resident in the United Kingdom?
My hon. Friend was speaking about reciprocal rights with regard to France and Germany. If PLR were different in Scotland from the arrangements in England, presumably reciprocal rights ought to apply as well between the two countries. It would not be fair if Scottish authors living in Scotland were to be paid by the English taxpayer and vice versa. Would my hon. Friend not have been better advised to express amendment No. 2 in the words "authors resident in England" if the assumptions that he has made about the Scottish referendum were to prove correct?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I thought that if the Government were to accept both my amendments we could amend the Bill in another place later, so that the words "United Kingdom" should have substituted for them "England", and possibly "Wales" and "Ulster".

Mr. English: Not Ulster.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman says "Not Ulster", but I notice that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is one of the sponsors of the Bill. I therefore presume that it operates there.

Mr. English: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who represents a Scottish constituency, realises that Ulster comprises eight counties and Northern Ireland six, and that there are those who say that even those six may or may not be in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman complains about my use of the word "Ulster" rather than the idea behind the use of that word. Very well, for "Ulster" I substitute "Northern Ireland". The point which my hon. Friend made was a very good one. I would have thought that if a Scottish Assembly declined to go ahead with PLR, as it might well do since it will only exist on a block grant from Westminster, this House might still feel it right to pay money to authors resident in the Scottish part of the United Kingdom on the ground that those authors contribute taxes to the United Kingdom Treasury. That would be one way of harmonisation.
However, it was pointed out that if only one of the 72 sample libraries to be in Scotland or Wales, it would mean that particularly Scottish authors—by that I mean authors such as Nigel Tranter who are particularly popular in Scotland—would not be registered on the 72 sample. The same would apply in Wales. If one were to have more than one sample library in Scotland or Wales, one would then detract from the ability of those sample libraries to be sensitive to readership habits in the rest of the United Kingdom. In that respect one is faced with an almost insoluble dilemma.
A related issue to the main problem of regional selection concerns the Gaelic and Welsh languages. Unless one wants to put one's sample library on the Isle of Skye, I do not suppose that many Gaelic books would be withdrawn. I do not know which part of Wales speaks Welsh, but, unless one had a sample library there, one would not be aware of the sensitivity of Welsh literature which would be desirable if all authors are to be given a fair crack of the whip.
Therefore, the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) about West Country and Yorkshire books really arises out of the question of a Scottish Assembly. The one advantage that I can see of a Scottish Assembly which went ahead with PLR is that at least Scottish authors whose books were withdrawn from Scottish libraries at a very high frequency would be able to get a just amount of PLR vis-à-vis their British or foreign counterparts. That would be one general advantage of a Scottish Assembly which decided to go ahead with PLR.
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State missed the first part of my argument, because I am sure she must be just as fed up with a Scottish Assembly as I am. But, out of kindness to her, I must point out that the point at issue is that a Scottish Assembly will be given powers over Scottish libraries, and the Bill says that PLR is dependent upon Scottish libraries being included in the sample. But if the Scottish Assembly instructs its libraries not to co-operate in PLR, the whole scheme will be vitiated. For that reason, I suggest that all libraries under the control of a Scottish Assembly should be removed from the Bill so that the Scottish Assembly can itself decide exactly what is wants to do.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman, almost from the opposite point of view to one who believes in devolution, has got the truth of the matter. One can hardly believe that a matter as small and inessential as a PLR should be decided centrally and not devolved to Scotland. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this matter could be solved if my hon. Friend the Minister gave us an assurance that in the event of a certain referendum taking place on 1 March, and

of the people of Scotland expressing their wish for an Assembly, they should have power over these minor matters?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, up to a point. In a sense, the decision is not up to the hon. Lady, although no doubt she will explain it. In one sense the matter has already been decided, because the Scotland Act states that any Scottish Assembly will have power over the libraries. Therefore, there is an inherent contradiction between the two measures.
Instead of making a great fuss about the matter in regard to the Scotland Act, I suggest that we can correct this error by getting the Government to agree to amendment No. 60, that the libraries covered by the Scotland Act should be removed. I know that the hon. Member for Springburn is a great expert in these matters, and no doubt he will give us his views.
Summing up, I reiterate that there should be no money for foreign authors. If the Government will not accept that, there should be no money for foreign authors where there is no reciprocity. It is ludicrous to include Scottish libraries in the Bill when the Scotland Act already says that they come under the Assembly. I hope that the hon. Lady will address her mind to these two propositions.

Mr. Buchanan: I shall not be led astray by the hon. Member for Aberdene, South (Mr. Sproat) into talking about what Scottish librarians think of the Bill. I think I made that clear on Second Reading. Librarians as an official body do not think very much of the Bill, anxious though they are to assist authors. They wish to assist them in a practical way.
I was reluctant to speak earlier in the debate. At this late time in the evening I find myself hoping that the radio is turned off and that the Scottish journalists have gone home. The front pages of the newspapers tomorrow—and even the radio and television—will be full of the crises which Britain faces. There is a crisis in the road transport industry and there is crisis on the railways, and Government are in constant session. The railway trade unionists are meeting Len Murray. Constituents will turn to the middle pages of the newspapers and discover that their elected representatives are discussing a public lending right.
Our councillor friends had to face a barrage of criticism two years ago when they had to cut back public expenditure. Now they will read, from their rather enlightened position, that we propose to spend £2 million rewarding people who have scuttled into tax exile, who have scuttled out of this country to avoid paying tax. They will read that we are to pay those people out of a sum of £2 million less the £600,000 administrative charges. The hon. Gentleman forgot the cost of printing the annual report. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for seeing fit to give way on that. I hope that he will give way on the Bill.
There should be no place in the Bill for paying money out of a somewhat restricted fund to authors who take themselves off to Jersey, the Isle of Man and foreign parts to dodge taxes. I think that I carry more of my colleagues into the Lobby against such a proposal to pay those tax exiles.

Mr. Moate: As far as I recall, I did not take part in the devolution debates. I shall resist the temptation to compensate for that by making a long speech now on the devolution aspects of the amendments.

Mr. English: Feel free.

Mr. Moate: However, it seems to me that the amendments on the question of Scottish libraries touch on the fundamentals of devolution. I have added my name to the names of my hon. Friends on the amendments which would have the effect of excluding Scottish libraries, but I am not sure that I was right to do so, for the simple reason that I should find it utterly deplorable if we had to segregate the library system of our country in that way.
I am a great believer in the United Kingdom. I trust that on 1 March the Scottish people will ensure that the United Kingdom remains intact and that the unity of the kingdom will in no way be jeopardised by the creation of the Assembly. While there might be a certain logic to our amendment in the light of the Scottish Assembly legislation, it adds emphasis to the possible break-up of the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, if a separate Scottish library arrangement resulted in a second Public Lending Right Bill, a second Registrar, a second quango in the United Kingdom and—heaven forbid!—perhaps even a third one in Wales—not just horror upon horror but horror upon horror upon horror—we should be inflicting upon all the British people something of which I can only say "Perish the thought!"
Although in many ways the amendment is logical, the principle is undesirable, but we are entitled to know from the Minister what the precise position will be if enough Scottish people—40 per cent.—vote in the referendum to have devolution. If they do so, and the measure remains on the statute book with Scottish libraries as a separate authority, some tidying up of the legislation might be needed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) pointed out, if the Scottish libraries were directed not to co-operate, or if the Assembly decided that it wanted a different sort of PLR scheme, there could be a conflict. As the sampling arrangement depends upon a number of Scottish libraries being within the sample, we should be clear whether an amendment is necessary if Scottish devolution proceeds.
However, my main concern is about foreign authors. I readily concede two points. First, it is a difficult and complex matter. Secondly, what I shall say now probably conflicts very much with what I said on a previous occasion. But if I am inconsistent on this I have a suspicion that my inconsistency will be matched again—it has already been matched—by the Government. I gathered from an earlier remark by the Minister of State that the Government were likely to propose an alteration to the Bill. Therefore they too will go back on what they said previously. I do not criticise them for that. Indeed, I go to the other extreme and compliment the Minister of State on being much more flexible and open-minded than any Minister has been previously on this legislation. That might be get him into trouble later.

Mr. Oakes: I am used to that.

Mr. Moate: It is better to stick one's neck out and try, as the hon. Gentleman is certainly doing, to improve this legislation.
Let me go back to 1976. Then, the Bill originally provided that there should be no restriction on the benefit payable to foreign authors. In another place, their Lordships introduced an amendment into the Bill requiring that there should be reciprocity before benefits were paid to overseas authors. That was the form in which the Bill came to this House.
Then the Government introduced their own amendment seeking to delete that reciprocity requirement put into the Bill by their Lordships. They argued that it was improper, wrong or impractical to try to restrict these rights to United Kingdom citizens or residents. Initially, their argument was that to do so would be in breach of our international commitments in terms of copyright law and, therefore, that we could not introduce such a restriction.
By the time the Bill was considered in Committee, the Government changed their mind and admitted that they were wrong. They agreed that there was no obligation under copyright law imposing such a requirement on the Government. Nevertheless, they said that we still had international obligations. They quoted the Treaty of Rome and said that, under

it, it would be wrong to restrict this right to British nationals.
Originally my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) had been very keen on this restriction remaining in the Bill. But he was so bowled over by the Treaty of Rome argument that he accepted that position immediately, and that is how the matter ended. The Government had their way and the Bill reverted to its original wording about payments to foreign authors. Presumably the Government were satisfied about their argument then, because that is how they introduced the Bill two years later.
However, I suspect that the Minister will tell us now that he intends to introduce an amendment to restrict the provisions of the Bill, not as I believe it should be restricted, to United Kingdom citizens, but to United Kingdom citizens and EEC nationals. If that is so, I argue that that will introduce yet another form of discrimination which in itself is un-desirable.
I do not accept that the Treaty of Rome requires us to pay this public lending right benefit to EEC citizens whose books are lent in this country. Presumably, the Treaty of Rome requires us to allow authors who are citizens of other EEC countries to reside here and to sell their books here. But I do not accept that that means, therefore, that we must discriminate in their favour and against authors who happen to be citizens of other countries. I regard it as an unreasonable form of discrimination if we have to benefit the EEC whose nationals are already doing well out of this country.
It would be rubbing salt in the wound to say that we had to pay more money to Common Market nationals when we are already paying £800 million a year into the EEC budget. I do not see the argument in law for that. In any sense, it would be offensive to do that. But in this area it would be even more offensive. Surely we do not intend to discriminate in favour of an author who happens to be a citizen of, say, Luxembourg, and against writers in other parts of the English-speaking world whose books normally are published and much more freely available in this country. Do we really intend to discriminate against authors who are citizens of Canada, the United States, New Zealand or Australia but say that we


must pay this benefit to Common Market nationalists? I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong and that that is not proposed. Having said that, I argue very much in favour of the amendment to which I have put my name.
10.30 p.m.
On the last occasion on which we debated this matter, I was persuaded by the Government's argument about their international obligations. It seemed to me that if that was the situation, we should honour the spirit and the letter of our international obligations. I was also influenced by the leader in The Times, which I quoted earlier, about restricting this property right in such a way as to say that justice ends at Dover. The idea was that it should be restricted to United Kingdom nationals and should not apply to foreign nationals.
That property right has now become so mangled that I think we should forget about it and try to use the £2 million—a large sum, but a small fund in terms of 30,000 authors—for the maximum benefit of live authors. Indeed, I suggest that it should be restricted to live authors in this country.
It seems fundamentally wrong to ask taxpayers in this country to foot the bill for helping not only Harold Robbins, who has been mentioned on many occasions, but innumerable overseas authors to boost their incomes. That is an untenable situation, particularly when the fund is so small and British authors will benefit so little. It is not right to say to the pensioners of Faversham or of any other constituency "We are going to take taxes from you to help pay foreign authors".
I do not believe that there could be much outcry from any foreign author, national or Government if we restricted this right in the way that I have suggested. Unless other countries have a public lending right and can reciprocate, they can hardly complain if we do not confer this benefit upon their citizens. There could not be much objection. This is an innovation for this country. Therefore, I submit that there could be very little complaint.
Who would be the first to take action if, in somebody's eyes, we were in breach of our international obligations? Would it be Mr. Harold Robbins? It would be pretty offensive if an author of his calibre

were to sue the British Government for payment of money to help boost his position. Such a situation is most unlikely. Therefore, I maintain that the Government would not be in much danger of being challenged if they restricted this benefit to British nationals only—and I emphasise British nationals only.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: British residents only.

Mr. Moate: I accept my hon. Friend's correction. I accept the implication that the amendment probably begs many questions about the definition of who is or is not to benefit under the clause. We discussed this matter in previous proceedings. We sought to restrict this right to United Kingdom citizens, but there is no satisfactory definition of a United Kingdom citizen. At least, by restricting the right to those who are resident in this country, we shall ensure that it is restricted to people who pay taxes here.
I have a great deal of sympathy with British citizens who go abroad to avoid paying our penal taxes, but, having taken that decision, they must abide by it. It is wrong that they should benefit under a scheme of this kind if they are avoiding paying British taxation, which they are entitled to do. Of course, in those happy days when a Conservative Government reduce the massive penal burden of direct taxation, they will return and be able to claim public lending right. I believe that public lending right should be restricted to people living in this country and paying British taxation.
The situation is more complex than I have described. However we restrict payment of the right, what will be the position of foreign authors' books that are published and lent in this country? If a Soviet author has a book published here and lent extensively through the library system, will he benefit? Could his publisher put in a claim on his behalf? Could the translator make a claim? It could be argued that extensive sales in this country would entitle that author to benefit. I suspect that there are complications in such cases, whatever formula we adopt.
The Government have, correctly, not gone along with the EEC requirement that we should have introduced tachographs. I do not think that we should tamely accept that every interpretation of the


Treaty of Rome should be embodied in legislation here and that we should meekly agree with it. There are many occasions when we need to challenge some of those assertions. The Minister of State will be in good company if he says that, no matter what advice he has received about the Treaty, he does not regard it as an overriding factor in influencing this legislation.
Let us decide what is best for Britain and British authors and state categorically that, if the public lending right benefit is to be paid, it will go to British authors living in this country.

Mr. Loyden: The hon. Gentleman has made a commendable case on other matters and it is sad to see him adopting an insular position in regard to literary works. Does he not agree that such works, wherever they come from, ought to be judged on the basis of their literary value?
There is an absence of international agreement on these matters and it may be that we should be working for that. The hon. Gentleman's suggestions would create a degree of insularity in British authors. The views in Europe and other parts of the world of our way of life and political system are invaluable to us and it would be wrong of us to limit the Bill, in an insular way, to British authors.

Mr. Moate: I see a great deal in the hon. Gentleman's arguments. In a sense, literature is international and we do not want to be insular about it. But that is not what we are talking about. I understand that we are discussing a positive endeavour to assist and encourage literature in this country, to encourage people to write more books or to reward them when books are lent. The method chosen is a fund which, when spread among authors, will provide very limited benefit.
How is that sum of money to be used to maximum advantage? If one were to pursue the logic of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), one would bestow it across the world and benefit all authors, whether they lived in the Soviet Union, Australia, the United States or the United Kingdom. That cannot be done with limited resources. Given those resources, I suggest that British authors should benefit. Other countries are not trying to emulate us

and I do not believe we should try to encourage them to do so. This is the silliest way to encourage authors.
If the Government were sensible, they would use the available funds to help authors through something like the Arts Council. The money would go direct, as a grant, to the individual author, who would be a British author. There would be no question of paying Harold Robbins, Alistair Maclean or a Soviet Union author. Such a policy would be positive and clear and directed to the worthy person in need of support and assistance.
Instead, we are becoming involved in a complex, legal international argument. Why cannot we agree that it is a scheme to help British authors? The principles have been so muddied and flawed that we should forget them and limit the money to British authors or to authors living in the United Kingdom and paying United Kingdom taxation. That makes sense. There is an argument in favour of each option, but the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, restricting the scheme to authors resident in the United Kingdom, makes a lot of sense. I hope that the Minister will not introduce another halfway house, limiting the benefit to Europe or the European Economic Community. I would prefer the Bill to remain as it is rather than see that new discrimination introduced. My preference is that the Bill should be limited as my hon. Friend has proposed and so ably argued.

Mr. Oakes: I intend to ask the House to reject the amendments as they stand. This has been a most interesting debate. This House is a peculiar place. It is rather like wine; it improves with time. In the course of this debate, many interesting arguments have been put forward. Indeed, they were put forward in Committee in a rather extreme way by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), and I said I disagreed with them. I have considered what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and other members of the Committee have said, and some of the remarks gave me a little unease. I have listened carefully to the debate tonight, and I shall go further in reciprocity than I intended.
I would like to examine the three main aspects of the debate. First, there is the


question of the United Kingdom national and his residence. The second strand of the debate has been the question of reciprocity and whether a foreign author should receive rights under the Bill. The third question relates to Scotland. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) asked whether the Bill would apply to Scotland if, as a result of the referendum on 1 March, devolution takes place.
I take first the question of the United Kingdom resident. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South argues that the wording should be those
who are resident in the United Kingdom.
He is specific that one must live here to benefit from the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) says that no payment should be made to persons normally resident abroad whether or not they retain citizenship of the United Kingdom. I still resist that approach for reasons that I think my hon. Friend and other hon. Members may accept. I know that it is emotive and in some ways fair to say that if a United Kingdom author goes abroad for tax reasons it is entirely wrong that the British taxpayer should pay him money. The problem is, who decides the motive of a person going to live abroad? We are looking at the question of authors' rights. We say in the Bill that an author whose books go through the public libraries has a right to a certain amount of income.
10.45 p.m.
I find it difficult to accept that the Registrar or someone else should determine that that right should be infringed because that author goes to live abroad. Some authors live abroad but pay United Kingdom tax on their earnings. They may have gone abroad not to avoid British taxes but for health reasons or in the course of their profession. Many authors, including many of my favourite authors, locate their stories in the wild regions of the world. An author will spend much time there in order to get the feel of the location and thereby improve his literary efforts. Or he may have married someone from abroad and goes abroad for that reason.
I am surprised at the attitude of some Conservative Members. They continually talk about fundamental human rights

and about tax inspectors and others interfering with those rights. But how do we in legislation decide upon the reason for a person going abroad? Who has the right to make that determination?

Mr. Cope: Inspectors of taxes make a distinction between three classes of United Kingdom citizens. There are citizens who are resident here, those who are, in the technical phrase, ordinarily resident here, although they may be abroad temporarily, and those who are domiciled here. These are three distinct classes. Sometimes the inspectors go to a little effort to determine the classification of an individual. All United Kingdom citizens fall into one of those three classes. Would the Minister accept an amendment along the lines of amendment No. 2 if it said "domiciled in the United Kingdom" instead of
resident in the United Kingdom"?

Mr. Oakes: I would not, and not because I am being awkward, as hon. Members will discover from my next point.
Under the terms of the Bill we are dealing with a right. Further, it would transpose the Inland Revenue and the Treasury in determination of matters involving the Registrar under the scheme. It would be costly to determine the matters that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Secondly, it involves the Registrar being in cahoots with the Inland Revenue on the matter. This is a right. My blood curdles at the idea of giving a United Kingdom citizen a right of which he is deprived if he goes abroad. Some countries which have been mentioned today do that, but we, thank goodness, do not.
I turn to the question of reciprocity. My comments might be acceptable to hon. Members. I have examined the matter carefully. The hon. Member for Faversham is right. The issue bristles with difficulties. The hon. Member mentioned our obligations under the Treaty of Rome. I have been advised that to exclude an author who is a citizen of the EEC from such a right would, without doubt, breach the Treaty of Rome.
I still think that, despite that, we must examine the matter. West Germany, for example, has a public lending right scheme which, on the face of it, is reciprocal. In practice it is exceedingly difficult for a non-West German author


to participate in that scheme. France, Italy, Ireland and other European countries do not operate such a scheme.
I cannot fly in the face of the Treaty of Rome, but I shall look at the question of reciprocity. Within Europe it is perhaps a matter for negotiation between officials in the Foreign Office and the European Parliament. Perhaps they could ensure that there is genuine reciprocity within Europe. I cannot say that we can exclude all foreign authors from the scheme, but I shall examine the matter.
The issue is clearer when one examines the situation in the rest of the world. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South mentioned Australia. I understand that Australia has a public lending right system but that it is applied only to foreigners who are resident in Australia and to Australian citizens. New Zealand also applies its scheme only to residents.
I can see the force of the arguments of the hon. Members for Faversham and for Aberdeen, South. They say that if a country has no reciprocal system it is grossly unfair that resident citizens of that country should benefit from our scheme. I cannot put the matter right today. But I shall consider the possibility of amendments being tabled in another place on the lines of what I have said about reciprocity. Hon. Members have made a fair point.

Mr. Loyden: I hope that my hon. Friend will not confine his remarks. I put to my hon. Friend a hypothetical question; I expect that he will give me a hypothetical answer. Suppose that an author was expelled from the United Kingdom but that a book of his was published in this country. I believe that it would be wrong that the support in this measure should not apply to him. I accept that there is a need for international agreement, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not draw the issue too tightly.

Mr. Oakes: I see my hon. Friend's point. Fortunately, we expel very few people, and I have not exercised my mind on this point. If America introduced a system whereby British authors could benefit from a public lending right, it would be fair for us to give reciprocity to American authors. If a country did not

extend reciprocity, we should look closely at the position. The whole subject bristles with difficulties. I am not a Foreign Office Minister, but there are all sorts of problems regarding international treaties, and so on.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Faversham, to his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South and to my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn. I believe that there is some force in their case. I cannot put it right on Report, but I shall endeavour to see whether, in another place, we can meet the spirit of their speeches.
Amendments Nos. 58 and 60 restrict the position, if Scottish devolution comes about, by providing that the measure shall not apply to any library which is responsible to the Scottish Assembly. I hope that the House will reject the amendments. Their effect would be that, if a Scottish library is not included in the scheme, a Scottish author, even though he be registered under the United Kingdom scheme, would be deprived of benefiting from the scheme because the Scottish library was not included in it. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South would want that to happen. It would be grossly unfair to Scottish authors. On Second Reading hon. Members representing the Scottish and Welsh National Parties, and Ulster Unionist Members, welcomed the intention to apply the right on a United Kingdom basis.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment. The Scottish amendment would have a detrimental effect upon Scottish authors. I assure hon. Members that I shall try to meet the points which they have raised on the other amendments by action in another place.

Mr. Kimball: I hope, particularly after hearing the Minister's reply, that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) will not withdraw his amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) got to the kernel of this matter by referring to the problem of domicile. We are not naive enough to believe that a Government Department will pay lending rights gross. They will be paid less the standard rate of income tax. Will the Minister tell us whether the rights will be paid gross or net? That is of great importance when


we consider authors' domicile or residence.
Presumably the rights will be paid less the standard rate of income tax. If the author is impoverished, presumably he will be able to claim back the tax that has been deducted at source that he should not have paid. If the author is domiciled abroad and is drawing his money from sources in Britain, the simplest approach is to tax his rights at the top rate. It may be said "If he has gone abroad and he no longer wishes to pay United Kingdom taxation, it must be that his earnings in the United Kingdom are such that the level of our taxation is unacceptable."
11 p.m.
That which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South has injected into the argument is, I believe, the solution to the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has posed. The Minister of State talks gaily about a reciprocal arrangement, but other than authors in some dreadful countries, like Sweden, which have a higher rate of tax than the United Kingdom, surely no author will want to come to write a book here, let alone have it printed and published here, and subject his royalties to our level of taxation. There are only about three countries in the world other than Sweden where taxation considerations would make it advantageous for an author to come to the United Kingdom.
The Minister has not dealt with the problem of authors who have to go abroad to research their work. The top-selling book at Christmas was on Captain Cook. The author had to go to the South Pacific for a considerable time to research that work. I am certain that during the time that he was there he did not suffer penal rates of United Kingdom taxation. That is another category of author that is not covered by the amendment. To produce books that we all enjoy, some authors have to live outside the United Kingdom for a period.
It is all very well at this time of night for the Minister to say that he is slightly sympathetic and that he will give the matter consideration. Before we let the amendment go, I want him to produce a constructive answer. Let him tell us how he will deal with the problem. If we do not take that approach, we shall find that the whole Bill becomes enacted because

the Minister is a charming person who is liked by everyone in the House. There is the danger that it will pass through the House on the agreement that everything will be considered later. In that way we shall lose the opportunity to receive a firm undertaking from the Government on what they intend to do.
If only the whole scheme could be dropped. The object of the exercise is to help authors. There is only one way to help them, namely, to give public libraries more money to buy books to allow those who use public libraries to borrow and enjoy those books. The more we hear in the debate and the longer we go on into the night, the more we realise what an expensive, useless and futile scheme it is and how complicated it is becoming. There is talk about reciprocal arrangements with other countries. We have heard that they will not exist.
The best course would be to adjourn the debate and not continue with the scheme. It may be that we shall hear the plans of both Front Benches.

Mr. Cope: It seems late in the day for the Minister to bring forward the suggestion of reciprocity, to say that he might agree to it and that he will consider the matter with care. The Bill has been knocking around for a long time. The principle has been knocking around since at least before the war. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have practically taken the Bill through the House. However, in the last few hours of discussion of the Bill in this place the Minister says that there is a possibility that he will introduce reciprocity. It is late in the day, to say the least, to make such a statement.
After all, I do not see that the principle that underlies it differs much from, for example, social security benefits. Over the years, we have had a great deal of discussion about reciprocity of social security benefits and the way British citizens are treated overseas and the way overseas citizens are treated when they come here, fall ill or become unemployed or in some other way qualify for benefit. It does not seem to me that this scheme to benefit authors differs in principle from such social security schemes.
I want to develop what I said in an intervention in the Minister's speech. I did


not agree with what he said in reply to me. The point concerns the tax position of authors as affected by the Bill. An author who lives in this country, writes a book and gets money under the Bill, if it is passed in its present form, will have it taxed as earned income; after he dies, his heirs will have it taxed as investment income.
But for foreign authors the position is not quite as easy as that. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain what the tax position is for foreign authors. I do not think that it is quite as easy as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). These authors may well never have been to Britain; they may not have earned the money in Britain—they may have written the books in America, Switzerland or elsewhere. The money may accrue to them from the British taxpayer without their ever having visited Britain.
In any case, any income which they have which arises in this country and which then becomes payable to someone overseas is subject to a double taxation agreement, if one exists, between this country and the other country concerned. We have many double taxation agreements, and I am not sure how the income under this Bill will be treated under those agreements. The agreements differ in detail, but they mostly follow the OECD model agreement. I should be interested to hear how this income will be treated under double taxation agreements for foreign authors who have never been to this country and have done all their work abroad.

Mr. Kimball: As the Minister is unable to tell us, does my hon. Friend, with his great experience of the taxation system, expect these rights to be paid gross or net?

Mr. Cope: I am afraid that I am unable to say whether they will be paid gross or net. It is clearly the assumption of whoever wrote the explanatory and financial memorandum that they will be paid gross and presumably not taxed, because it says that the charge on the public funds will be £2 million. There are various allowances for expenses and so on, but basically it is £2 million.
It is assumed in the Government's calculations that the authors will actually receive £2 million, and that implies that it will be paid gross, otherwise the net amount of money that the Treasury will have to expend will be considerably less than £2 million. Some of it, of course, will be over the exchanges in terms of being paid out overseas, and some will be paid in this country, but the net effect on the Treasury will be considerably less than £2 million. That seems to me to imply that it will be paid gross. I may be wrong; perhaps it will be paid net. Perhaps we shall see something about it in the Finance Bill this year, when we get to it, depending on who introduces it.
I should like to develop the point about residence and domicile which I raised in my intervention. Residence, ordinary residence and domicile are three different things. They are differentiated in the tax statutes. The Revenue and taxpayers go to a great deal of trouble to agree between themselves who is resident, who is ordinarily resident and who is domiciled in this country, and who is in each of those categories overseas.
Even though those domiciled overseas may remain United Kingdom citizens, even though they may earlier have lived here, and even though they may have written their books while living here, for the purposes of United Kingdom taxation they are out of the net and gone. They are considered to have cut off their intention ever to live in the United Kingdom again. They have uplifted their roots and gone abroad. They have no residence or house here, nor have they a bank account.
The Revenue goes to a lot of trouble to make sure that these people have upped sticks and gone. They are perfectly entitled to pull up their roots and go overseas. I respect not only their right to do so, but I understand why they do so. From their point of view, I believe that they are quite right in doing so rather than staying here and paying our rates of tax. But if they choose to do so, I do not see why the British taxpayer, who will not benefit at all from any future efforts which they may make, should be expected to cough up money under this Bill.
I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us what the tax position is of authors who are domiciled overseas. Can


he also say what will happen to the income received from the Bill?

Mr. Moate: With his considerable knowledge of taxation, can my hon. Friend tell me whether I am right in believing that authors in Eire are in a particularly advantageous position? As I understand it, as a deliberate act of encouraging literature, authors pay no income tax whatever. Does my hon. Friend know whether that is the case? Would that affect the reciprocal position, and would not that be a more advantageous way of encouraging authors to stay in this country?

Mr. Cope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am not an expert on the Irish tax system, but it is my understanding that authors in the Republic of Ireland enjoy considerable direct tax privileges which are such as to encourage authors of British and other nationalities to go and live in Ireland. If they choose to do so, and particularly if they become domiciled in Ireland, I see no reason why we should support them.
Of course, the converse applies. We might well learn from the Irish in this respect as, indeed, in some others, because Ireland's tax system has other advantages with regard to close companies and so on that I would welcome. However, I see no reason why we should not copy Ireland in respect of authors.
I should like to make a brief point about expelled citizens arising from something said earlier by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). Of course, these people are very few. By definition they are all foreigners. They are all people who have no right of residence in this country, otherwise the Home Secretary and the courts would not be able to expel them. Yet they may be in a position to make a great deal of money from books about their experiences. A good deal of the benefit and notoriety attaching to those books would arise from the very fact that they had been expelled.
11.15 p.m.
That being so, it is even less desirable that, if the Home Secretary takes the view that such people are not fit to live here and should be expelled, they should be able to go overseas and benefit from a subsidy by the British taxpayer, partly as a result of the very fact that the Home

Secretary has declared them unsuitable to live among us, for his own proper reasons.
One can think of various names, but I do not wish to inflame any Labour Member by mentioning anyone who has been expelled recently. Some people might put pen to paper or typewriter to ribbon to benefit from their being thrown out. They, even more than people who have given up their United Kingdom domicile, do not deserve to benefit from the Bill.
However, my main point is to ask the Minister to clear up the matter with which he seemed unable to deal just now, to clear up the tax position and tell us whether authors overseas would benefit in full or only in part from the benefits apparently conferred on them by the Bill.

Mr. Kimball: As we have the advantage of my hon. Friend's great tax knowledge, can he deal with the question of authors who are in prison? What is the tax position of prisoners? Will they get their rights if they sell their story of, say, a train robbery?

Mr. Cope: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is speaking of people in prison in this country or overseas.

Mr. Kimball: Either.

Mr. Cope: If a man is in prison in this country, he is resident in this country—both resident and ordinarily resident. I have three prisons in my constituency, and I can assure my hon. Friend that prisoners are resident there. They have little opportunity to write books in prison, but some of them may have written books before going into prison. If so, or if they have other income which arises while they are in prison, their tax position is exactly the same as my hon. Friend's and mine, depending on how successful the books are.
The fact of being imprisoned by a foreign regime may affect one's residence, or where one is ordinarily resident, depending on the length of sentence. If a sentence takes a person into more than one tax year he will become non-resident and not ordinarily resident. But I think that the assumption would be—I speak without notice of the question—that a British subject who was imprisoned overseas retained a British domicile if it was clearly his intention to return. Certainly, if he took any action such as asking for


the British consul to visit him, that would tend to reinforce the assumption that his intention was eventually to return to the United Kingdom, and his domicile would remain here.
I suppose that there could be a difference if the prisoner were under sentence of death and it was thought that he was not likely to return anywhere. But I think on the whole that his domicile, as long as he remained in gaol, would still be held to be the United Kingdom. Therefore, from the Revenue's point of view, he would remain in the position of being not resident or ordinarily resident but still domiciled in the United Kingdom. His tax position would follow from that.

Mr. Rhodes James: The House is very grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), Faversham (Mr. Moate), Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) and Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr Buchanan) for having ventilated a matter that was raised in Committee and is of profound concern. The House is also grateful to the Minister for the manner in which he has responded to the debate, particularly for his commitment that the matter will be reviewed again by the Government, with a view to the possibility of amendments being tabled in another place.
The amendment struck me as being extremely limited, because it could have included Mr Harold Robbins, if he were so foolish as to become a resident of the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, the House having had a very good debate, I think that the Minister's statement should satisfy my hon. Friends, and I hope that I can persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South to withdraw his amendment in view of the Minister's commitment.

Mr. Sproat: I am happy to yield to the beguiling persuasion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and, perhaps more importantly, to the Minister's constructive and helpful words. We look forward to seeing the amendment when it is introduced in the other place, and, on that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 7, after 'authors', insert—
joint authors, editors, compilers, illustrators, or other such persons who were wholly or largely responsible for the creation of a book".
As we have heard incessantly from both sides of the House, the purpose of the Bill is the creation of justice for authors. To the extent that the Bill embodies a principle of merit in however faulty a package, were it to give justice to authors I should be much happier about it than I am. But if that is the principle on which it is based, it is unfair to draw a distinction between a number of different kinds of authors or creators of volumes such as editors, joint editors, compilers, illustrators, translators, and also authors of reference works.
This is a very wide subject, and I am sorry that the Government did not see fit in Committee to try to assist the authors of reference works. After all, since public lending right is to be—if it is at all—given, it should be given in respect of all books which are read from the shelves of public libraries, whether they are read in the homes of those who borrow them or by those who read them in the libraries.
We are talking about public libraries, and we know that books of reference from a very large part of those volumes which people go to public libraries to consult. There is a prima facie argument, therefore, for saying that the authors of reference works should be treated in a superior manner to the authors of novels. Certainly there should be equality between the authors of reference works and of novels in this respect.
The argument for reference works is that, whatever else they are, they are not mere volumes of entertainment. I agree that the word "mere" should not always be applied to novels. Novels can inform, instruct, penetrate and transmit the truth in a more profound way than many works of reference.
Nevertheless, we know also that a lot of novels—certainly, the majority of novels taken from public libraries—are mere entertainment, and one of the objections which those of us on these Opposition Benches who oppose the Bill maintain is that, since about 70 per cent. of the books borrowed from public


libraries are novels, there is here a question of mere entertainment, and there is a very good argument for asking why the general public should pay for a specific form of entertainment which happens to appeal to only a small section of that public.
Nobody says that the general public should subsidise cricket matches or should make access to opera performances at Covent Garden free, or whatever it might be, although, no doubt, we subsidise the Arts Council and the rest. I think that I take even the Government Whip, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), with me on this. I think it unfair that there should be this concentration of Government subsidy on certain sorts of entertainment and not on others, and although there is a case in respect of opera, say, because the economics of opera make it totally impracticable if it is not subsidised—I could argue that on another occasion—it cannot be said that novels would not be read if there were no subsidy. People will read novels. They can afford to read them without any Government subsidy.
Therefore, if we are to subsidise any part of the public library service, there is at least a prima facie case for saying that the support should go to that part which is beyond doubt serious, namely, reference books—which also happen to be more expensive—rather than novels, which are cheaper and are entertainment.

Sir Raymond Gower: For my guidance, will my hon. Friend say in what part of the Bill the authors of reference works are excluded from the benefits to autors? I can see no such exclusion.

Mr. Sproat: I cannot at the moment because I cannot afford the time in the middle of my speech to run through the whole Bill, but I dare say that the hon. Lady the Minister will tell my hon. Friend. But he can take it from me that reference books are excluded from the Bill.
Basically, the point of principle that I make is that if the Bill is to give justice for authors, not only should there be justice in the sense of saying that if their works are more popular they should get more—as I say, I do not like that principle, but at least it would be fulfillment of the idea of justice for authors—but

there should not be a distinction between different sorts of contributors to books.
The first kind of author who might qualify in this respect is an editor, and I shall give an example to show what I mean—an editor who, it seems to me, is indubitably entitled to whatever benefits public lending right may confer on authors, if any authors are to have such benefits at all. I take the reissue by Oxford University Press of the complete works of Chekhov. Those works are edited by Mr.—or perhaps Professor I do not know—Ronald Hingley, and, what is more, he has translated them, and provided footnotes, exegeses and cross-references. He has done enormous work on all the short stories and plays of Chekhov, which are now being reissued in I know not how many volumes—the plays bound in red and the short stories in green.
It seems to me absurd to say that that man, who is contributing enormously, in a way which it would be difficult to exaggerate, to the cultural awareness of our society by beautiful new translations of a great European writer shall not be entitled to a benefit to which Barbara Cartland is entitled. I do not want to write down Barbara Cartland, but—

Mr. Giles Radice: Why not?

Mr. Sproat: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier he would have heard me pay a touching tribute to a novel of hers called "Vote for Love"—a rather moving tale of a pretty, fluffy young thing who falls in love with a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Clement Freud: Tell us more.

Mr. Sproat: If the Liberal representative present deigned to grace our assemblies more often, he would have already heard my rather critical appreciation of this fine novel.
11.30 p.m.
What I am saying is that, however much Barbara Cartland may appeal to many people—and I am not critical of that—even those who buy her novels most and read them with the most pleasure would not pretend that she is making a greater contribution to our awareness of Western culture, or a greater literary contribution in any sense, than Ronald


Hingley with his new Oxford University Press edition of the works of Chekhov, Yet, as the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State have it at present, Barbara Cartland will get £1,000 a year, although she is a very rich lady and is already making a great deal of money out of her 198 novels, or however many it is, as well as her new gramophone record. She is making money out of all these things, and yet on top of that she is to get £1,000 from a public lending right, whereas Mr. Hingley is to get nothing.
That seems totally unfair. To draw a distinction between authors, in that sense, the author-translators, in the Hingley sense, seems to me a false distinction.
In the past, we have heard Government spokesmen say "Oh, yes, you have a point there, but the fact is that we have not got very much money to go round, and we have to draw the line somewhere." We have the old argument—"We must draw the line somewhere." Very well. If the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State and the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State want to draw the line in this Bill, let them draw it to exclude dead authors, up to 20 years. Let Ministers find a way—we discussed this matter on a previous amendment—to get rid of provision for all foreign authors. The Minister of State has been very helpful on that matter. The Government are to table an amendment in the other place.
There are, however, many ways in which the Bill could be tightened up—for example, the bureaucracy. The sum of £600,000 out of £2 million is to be spent on the bureaucrats, and then the Under-Secretary says "We cannot allow people such as Mr. Hingley to have any money because there is simply not enough money". In short, there will be enough money, if the Government Front Bench have their way, to pay the Registrar a salary of £20,000 a year, and to provide him with a car, and all the rest of it, but there will not be money to pay authors.
If the Bill has any raison d'etre, it is to stimulate literature in this country. That surely must mean concentrating on the most vital places if money is short—and, at £2 million, it certainly is short. But that certainly does not mean giving money to Barbara Cartland and her ilk,

on the one hand, but denying it to Ronald Hingley, as an editor, on the other.
I am very sorry that the Opposition Front Bench has not been graced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), because he is a very distinguished editor, as I understand it—

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman was present for three minutes.

Mr. Sproat: —of the works of Bagehot. I think that it is a series that is still being continued. I have not read the works, but I know that they are very highly regarded by everyone who reviewed them. Yet, as I understand it, my hon. Friend will not get a penny out of PLR as a result of his work. I am sure that he is not promoting the Bill because he hopes to benefit from it. None the less, if such a Bill is to become the law of the land, surely someone who does work of great historical value, such as editing the works of Bagehot, deserves as much as Barabara Cartland, Harold Robbins or Dick Francis, or any of the other people who quite properly appeal to a taste for mere entertainment.
In short, once again the balance has been wrongly drawn. The money will go to the wrong people. Why should it go for novels of mere entertainment if there is not enough money to pay it to the authors, or whatever, of more serious works who really contribute to what we are trying to do in the Bill?

Mr. Cope: In the various categories outlined in the amendment, my hon. Friend includes at the end
other such persons who were wholly or largely responsible for the creation of a book.
It seems to me that that category might include publishers in some circumstances. After all, there are many instances, I understand, of a book being suggested in the first place, an author found and the whole thing put together by a publisher, and where the creative spark which starts off the book is the publisher's. In those cases at least, do not publishers fall into the same category as editors, compilers and so on, as listed more specifically, and would it not be right for them to benefit at least equally with editors, compilers and authors of books?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point. It is certainly true


that on many occasions the origin of a book is in the publishing house. The publishing house sets about finding a suitable author. A coffee table book is often the sort of book which springs from a publisher's mind. It sets about finding the author and the illustrator and bringing them together.
The Minister of State said earlier that his blood curdled at something which was being proposed. My blood curdles at the idea of publishing houses being eligible for public lending right. We know, however, that under the Bill publishing houses will benefit, not only because libraries will be a showcase for their books but because it will be a great temptation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, for any author, particularly if he is elderly, particularly if he is without children—I say this having been in the business—to say to the publisher "You are offering me a royalty of 10 per cent. the first 5,000 copies"—or say, on the first 10,000 copies"—12½ per cent. on the next 5,000, and 15 per cent. on the next 5,000. That will not bring me enough money. I want more. Therefore, instead of my getting 10 per cent. on the first 10,000 copies, I will assign to you, as I am legally able to do, any future benefits out of public lending right, and will you please write into my contract that the 10 per cent. starts at 5,000 copies instead of at 10,000 copies?"
In short, the author will use the assignment of public lending right as a bargaining counter to get a better contract from his publisher. That perfectly legal and perfectly proper arrangement will mean that the British taxpayer will be paying in order to subsidise publishers. I do not like that.
I do not say that this would happen only with publishers. There is nothing to stop an author from assigning his public lending right to his tailor for making a suit. I am not saying that publishers are the only villains in this case. I take that as the most obvious example. An author might assign his PLR to his agent in return for his asking only 5 per cent. commission in future. There are a hundred ways in which the money could end up in hands for which it was not intended.

Mr. Cope: I still do not see the philosophical difference between payments to publishers who may be almost as involved, or more involved, in the creative processes

which lead to the production of a book, and payment to others involved. My hon. Friend mentioned coffee table hooks. Many of these contain not much text but many illustrations, sometimes provided by the same people. Is the author to get all the public lending right on the grounds that he has written part of the production, even though the main contribution may be in the photographs?

Mr. Sproat: That is a fair point. The answer to my hon. Friend's point about publishers being eligible for PLR because they often are the fons et oriqo of the whole book is—and this is the answer I would give if I were an author—"When you draw up my contract, I shall expect certain returns". Let us say it is a coffee table book. There was a beautiful coffee table book on the castles of mad Ludwig of Bavaria. I do not know who published it and I do not know who wrote the text. It was a lovely 10 in. by 10 in., glossy, five-colour laminated jacket and all the rest—a beautiful book.
If that were the publisher's idea and he got only 10,000 words of text to flesh out 130 pages of pictures, we should probably find in the contract that the royalty rate was only 5 per cent. for ever, or it might even be a down payment. In short, the publisher would get the extra profits, because he would not have to pay the author as high a royalty as normal and the author would probably agree because he would not have done so much work. The fact that he was to get PLR would mean that he could make a deal with his publisher, if he wished, to pay over X per cent. of his PLR. The publisher might say "It is only £12 a year anyway, it is peanuts, so it does not matter". Of course, if he were a best-selling author it might be £1,000.
In short, all these problems are remediable, to the detriment of the Government's principle, within contracts which could be negotiated between publishers and authors.

Mr. Rhodes James: And if a publisher writes a foreword?

Mr. Sproat: That again could be taken into account. There are 100 different factors which could be taken into account. The fact that it was only a 10,000-word book but the author was a world authority on the subject would entitle him to a higher royalty rate. These are factors


which a good agent should be able to work out on behalf of his author.
Returning to my point about editors, there is a simple remedy which would enable the Minister to accept the amendment. Of course, she might wish to tighten up phrases relating to publishers, illustrators and so on. For example, if Ronald Hingley is treated by the publishers on a straight royalty basis for the Oxford University Press series of Chekhov—I do not know whether he is, but I imagine that he gets 10 per cent., 12½ per cent. or 15 per cent., just like any other author—as though he were the original writer, Chekhov, why cannot he get PLR for withdrawals from public libraries on the same basis as any other author who is paid a royalty by his publisher?
There is no problem there at all. It requires the Government to look again. I cannot think why they have excluded this from the Bill. It is so obvious. It is not a lion in their path. If we had a proper Committee stage, no doubt it could have been settled then. There is no reason why editors should not be brought in.
The next extremely unfair omission concerns joint authors. It seems incredible that joint authors should be excluded. I cannot see the reasoning behind such exclusion. Many famous books have been written by joint authors—for example, "Diary of a Nobody" by George and Weedon Grossmith.

Mr. English: The Bible.

Mr. Sproat: I shall come to that. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has made a fair point. Would we say to the authors of "Diary of a Nobody", were they alive today, "You are not allowed to put 'George and Weedon Grossmith' on the cover. Otherwise, you will lose your public lending right"? It is bizarre. "1066 And all That" by Sellars and Yeatman is another example.
The other day I bought a Penguin book, "Philby" by Maureen McConville and Patrick Seale. It is a fascinating book. Because there are two authors on the cover or in reality, are we to exclude them? "I Don't Bruise Easily" by Brian Close—although it is written by somebody else—because it has only

one author on the cover, will entitle him to PLR. It is madness. Given that the Government clearly do not understand anything about the mechanics of publishing or where authors get their money from, I cannot understand why they should want to do this.
There is a simple remedy. When a publisher publishes a book by joint authors, the royalties are usually split down the middle. If both authors have contributed an equal amount, they get 5 per cent. royalties each on the first X thousand copies sold, while a single author gets 10 per cent. royalties.
11.45 p.m.
If that can be done by the publisher, through the agent who takes his 10 per cent., it can be done with public lending right. The money can be paid to the publisher who will send it to the agent for distribution to the author or authors as agreed in their contract. If the public lending right body decided that the book "Philby" qualified for a payment of £15 a year, the money could be sent to the publisher and forwarded to the agent, who would take off his £1·50 and divide the remaining £13·50 between the two authors.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): That would be £6·75 each.

Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he is in charge of the distribution of our overseas aid.
If the Government do not go ahead on those lines, we shall get into a world of petty deceit where, for example, the authors of the "Philby" book could say that if they put both their names on the cover they would not be eligible for public lending right. If it is a best seller, they may be entitled to £1,000. Such authors may decide to put one name on the cover but agree to divide the public lending right between them. That is the sort of appalling petty and trivial deceit into which publishers, authors and agents will be led if the Government follow the extraordinary idea that only single authors are to be eligible for public lending right payments.
Another group specifically ruled out by the Bill is compilers. Why should they be excluded? Kingsley Amis's new book, a Faber book of popular verse, is selling


at just less than £5. The publishers will tot up the number of sales and multiply it by the cover price, and Kingsley Amis will be owed 10 per cent. or so of the resulting figure.
A compiler often does more work in compiling a serious anthology than does a Mills & Boon romantic novelist who writes his work in, I should think, about four weeks. Simenon says that he writes a book in 10 days. Why should someone who writes a book in 10 days be eligible for public lending right when a compiler who makes a serious anthology which enriches the lives of those who read it will not be entitled to anything? Why should Kingsley Amis be entitled to £1,000 for writing "Lucky Jim" in 1953 or whenever but be entitled to nothing when he compiles the Faber anthology in 1978? It makes no sense.
Yet the problem is so simple of solution. In the previous debate we agreed on the principle of reciprocity, though the Minister pointed out that it was difficult to achieve it in practice because of the complications of EEC regulations. We accept that difficulty, but there are no difficulties in the cases that I have quoted. All that would be needed is the creation of one more sub-division of the public lending right body to get the money to the right source.
Many of the books seen in W. H. Smith or any bookshop that sells at Christmas present level are compilations. I can only prepare scrambled eggs myself, but there is a tremendous trade in cookery books. Those who compile cookery books are not being original because they explain how to make beef stroganoff but they go to tremendous trouble and doubtless visit the original house in Leningrad to find the recipe. To compile 200 recipes in the average book involves a great deal of hard work. Why should not those people be rewarded?
I saw a book recently on the history of Test cricket—I think by Bill Frindall, the BBC cricket statistician—from 1877 to 1977 containing every score card and the statistics of every batsman and bowler who has played in any Test match in the last 100 years. No one can tell me that putting together the statistics of 100 years of cricket is not far harder work than writing a Mills & Boon romance in three weeks, knocked about to a romantic writer's formula. Bill Frindall however,

will get absolutely nothing under this Bill. I would make a plea to the Minister that editors, joint authors and compilers are entitled, in certain circumstances, to be rewarded with public lending right, if anyone is to be rewarded. They have that right. It is a perfectly simple operation.
My hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) mentioned illustrators. This is another huge area. Why should not someone who illustrates a book—illustrations are the main part of a book—receive a PLR in the same way as he receives a royalty? It would be difficult if one was publishing a new edition of "Grimm's Fairy Tales" where the text would be out of copyright but there would be a new illustrator. The book would be sold on the strength of the new illustrations. Of course, people will specifically buy reissues with the famous Arthur Rackham illustrations. Although he is long dead, I use his name as an example. If his name is selling the book, why should he not be rewarded?
About 10 years ago I was approached by a gentleman who is now a personal adviser to the Prime Minister. He came with a proposition for an illustrated book. The idea was that an illustrator called Alan Aldridge should illustrate all the Beatles' songs. The main part of the book would consist of three verses of song followed by a full page of beautiful illustrations. It turned out to be a best seller all over the world, from Japan, Europe and America to Eastern Europe. It made a great deal of money for Mr. Aldridge, who deserved it. Unfortunately, I was only the publisher.
The title page of the book had the words "By Alan Aldridge" in gigantic letters. We were selling the book on its illustrations. Of course, we were also selling the words of the Beatles, who were big news 10 years ago, but the main emphasis was on the illustrations. We paid to Aldridge, as well as to a fellow called Dick James, who had the copyright of the Beatles' lyrics at the time, a royalty on that book. He received 10 per cent. or rather more. There was the example of an illustrator who had been treated by the publisher as the equivalent of the author of a book, and rightly so. It was his beautiful illustrations that sold the book, and I am not sure that another


edition is not about to be brought out now. We will get more royalties from that.
If, therefore, publishers can make allowance for royalty payments to illustrators, why cannot the Government simply pay the public lending right that accrues on a book to a publisher, who would then distribute it between the author of the text and the illustrator, as they will have determined in their contracts? It is extraordinary that the Government should go out of their way to ignore these people who have as much right to be considered as contributors to the country's cultural climate of this country as Barbara Cartland has. There is never any difficulty about giving money to her. People with much higher artistic and literary pretensions do not get the money, however.
When I was referring to the Oxford University Press edition of Chekhov, said that Hingley was not only the editor but the translator. I think that translators should also be included for benefit from the public lending right. For example, most people would say that the top 10 novels written in the twentieth century must include Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past". I cannot stand it, but many people think that it is a wonderful novel. The reason why that series of books received such acclaim in this country was the particularly outstanding translation by a man called Scott Moncrieff. It would be unfair for that translation not to be recognised in terms of public lending right.
Scott Moncrieff is no longer alive, but a man who is and who has done a wonderful translation is Sir Isaiah Berlin, who did a translation of Turgenev's "Torrents of Spring", which is an absolute masterpiece and has made this book live for readers in this country in a way that no previous translation has done. I cannot see why he should not be paid the public lending right in the same way as an author who writes a book from scratch, if that is the deal which the publishers agree to. If the publishers feel that it is the translation that is selling the book, surely there is no argument about the translator getting the benefit under public lending right. Presumably the qualities that sell the book on the retail market are the same qualities as cause

the visitor to the public library to take it from the shelf and read it.
One could make out a case for a whole series of people to receive this benefit. With certain books it is the printing, the jackets or even the illustrations that attract the reader. There is a big sale now for "William" books from the middle era when they were illustrated by Thomas Henry. People will pay a lot of money for those editions of the "William" books which they will not pay for other books which have the same text and illustrations by the same artist at a different period.
Therefore, there are hundreds of small ways in which certain organisations or individuals might have contributed to certain books. The House could get round that problem and ensure that justice was done simply by saying that public lending right will be paid not in respect of the author but in repect of the book, and if the book is taken from the shelves a certain number of times in a sample library the sum is owing on that book which is paid to the publishers, who distribute it to author, illustrator or whover according to contract.
12 midnight.
There is a problem about reference books. Many people feel that it is unfair that reference books are excluded. The public library has two functions—to provide entertainment and to provide instruction. Who is to say which is the more important? Nobody would say that the mere entertainment function was more important. Let us say that the functions are equal. If they are equal, they should be treated equally.
We must try to find a way of bringing reference books within the scope of the Bill. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that if we are foolish enough to pass the Bill, the supposed benefits are spread as widely as possible. Nobody can deny that the author of the work of reference should be rewarded. There might be arguments against the inclusion of illustrators, but nobody can argue that works of reference should be brushed aside as light productions of an idle hour. The Minister has a duty. She says that the Bill provides justice for authors. She must consider the interests of those who produce reference works.
Sometimes books are written by several authors. Dictionaries, for instance, are


often written by two or three people. But there is a simple solution to the problem of multi-authorship. The conditions must be written into a contract. When authors agree to write a work of reference, a contract is drawn up to apportion the other royalties, subsidiary rights, microfilm rights and other matters. All that is needed is an extra clause covering the division of the public lending right. Even if there were 10 authors there would be no problem. That would include in the system volumes of short stories, for instance, and works of history. A book entitled "The Age of Austerity" covered the 1930s and was published by Penguin. It contained essays written by half a dozen authors. Those works could be brought within the Bill.
However, the most important books in this connection are reference books. It would be simple to devise a sample method. I am not an expert on performing rights. I know about them only because my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham, when the House last considered the Bill, was critical of the Performing Right Society. I then received a long letter from the full-time organiser of the society. He sent me literature on the subject and explained that it was impossible to keep a record of every tune played by the BBC and that the society comes to a blanket agreement with the B.B.C. and others. It would be possible for a similar blanket arrangement to be made for works of reference in public libraries.
Perhaps it would take too long, in the brief time at our disposal until breakfast, to go into all the details, but it would be possible to devise such a system, and it is extraordinary that the Government have not made a serious effort to do so. They have said that the different areas pose different problems. They have rejected many proposals already.

Miss Margaret Jackson: They have been raised before.

Mr. Sproat: I know; but does the Minister suggest that because a matter was aired in November 1976 it should not be raised now?

Miss Margaret Jackson: So extensively has the subject the hon. Gentleman raises already been discussed that it has not been included for discussion now. The same applies to reference books and performing rights and the question of a

register of books rather than persons. This was debated earlier this evening. Perhaps the hon. Member is losing track of events. I should not be surprised.

Mr. Sproat: Since I have spoken on every amendment, I am certainly not losing track of events. The hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber for all of the debate, so that it is more likely that she has not got the balance of the debate. Reference to works of art are included and that is what I am discussing. That is why I tabled the amendment.
The Government have found difficulties in many different areas. None is insuperable. But to get the Bill through they have brushed aside all the different categories except one. They have said that they will accept only authors. I have demonstrated that in the categories I have mentioned the difficulties can be sorted out. The issue of works was something put in by the other place. I should not be surprised if, when the Bill goes to the other place, Lord Willis, who was pretty keen on this last time, attempts to add it again. I believe that it would be a good idea, if we are to have this burden imposed upon libraries.
Why should the Bill relate only to authors and not books? Public libraries deal in pictures, gramophone records—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying beyond the amendment.

Mr. Sproat: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was picking up a reference made by the hon. Lady to earlier debates.
If the Government believe that justice for authors is the principle behind the Bill, it would be perfectly possible to provide justice to those who are compilers, joint authors, editors, illustrators, translators and authors of works of reference. I have shown how this can be done at no extra cost and without damage to the relationship between authors, agents and publishers.

Miss Margaret Jackson: I hope that I can relieve the mind of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and thus relieve him and his hon. Friends of the necessity to continue the discussion.
The hon. Member argues in particular that the Government have sought to exclude editors and joint authors from the


Bill. He spoke with some regret of the fact that these people were not named on the face of the Bill. Let me reassure him by saying that it is not our intention to exclude such people for ever from public lending right. The distinction between our view and that of the hon. Gentleman is that we do not believe that it would be sensible to try to write these categories into the Bill. There is no suggestion that the Government envisage excluding these people from the scope of this measure in perpetuity. We are not setting our face against the idea that we should try to accommodate persons or groups other than single identifiable authors. We do not believe that that would be sensible or practical.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the amendment illustrates the difficulty of accurately defining how we should widen "author" on the face of legislation in the main statute. The position of
joint authors, editors, compilers, illustrators or other such persons
may be clarified under the scheme. I am not suggesting that the Government envisage that it will be possible to do that at once. In getting the scheme under way as smoothly as possible and with as little cost as possible, which I know is dear to the hearts of Opposition Members because the efficiency and cost of the scheme are matters to which they constantly refer, we do not envisage that it will be possible to accommodate joint authors or editors, for example, at the beginning. Nor are we entirely certain about exactly the mechanism we would use.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the way in which publishers decide how they will distribute the funds that are available between joint authors. It may be that that is an example that we can use. I do not say that that will prove to be the position as no doubt others will have different views. We are prepared to consider any workable mechanism for identifying editors, joint authors, compilers and others on the basis that that is something that should be done within the scheme. We do not envisage that it will be possible to put any such mechanism into effect immediately. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that it would be possible to widen the scheme by order under clause 3(7).

Mr. Moate: The hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Minister of State have been most helpful and have indicated that they have been flexible and open-minded in their approach to the scheme. There is surely a special case for editors. I do not see why it would be difficult to specify editors. Often there is only one editor of a particular work, volume or book. Surely the scheme, if not the Bill, could be extended to embrace editors. I ask her and her hon. Friend to reconsider the matter so that it may be clarified. I ask that they go as far as they can to include editors and even co-authors. There are difficulties with illustrators, compilers and others, but surely it would not be too difficult to find a mechanism for editors and co-authors.

Miss Jackson: I am certainly prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman that we shall consider the matter again. I wished not to mislead him by saying that we think it may be possible to do something under the scheme at some time. I did not wish him to draw the conclusion that I was saying that we might do it at the very beginning. I am warning him that we may not be able to arrive at a workable mechanism at the beginning. We are prepared to consider the matter again, and I take his point about editors.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I am genuinely bemused. I do not understand why it is not possible to make a payment to a nominated publisher and for him to distribute payment in a way that is agreed by that publisher with those who have co-ordinated in the work rather than to make one payment to the author. I cannot understand how that would create extra work for the scheme. It must be borne in mind that those running the scheme are not to be involved in any way in the distribution of the money once it is distributed from the scheme.

Miss Jackson: Distribution in that way would change the whole approach of the Bill from one in which a right subsists in an author and the money is paid to an author, he being free to assign it, to one in which it is solely the decision of the publisher to determine who enjoys the right and in what proportion. Opposition Members have expressed reservations about the pressure that they think some publishers may bring to bear on individual authors as regards assigning rights,


for example, and I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman suggests that distribution should be handled by publishers. We shall consider the suggestions that have been put forward by hon. Members.
I turn to the wording of the amendment. Apart from the issue of principle, on which we have some meeting of minds, we are presented with some difficulties. First, there is the reference to "other such persons". The hon. Gentleman recognises that that is a wide reference. That could include a whole range of persons—for example, the printers and the binders. That part of the amendment is widely drawn. The words "wholly or largely responsible" may lend themselves to interpretation that someone who had written only one-third of a book, for example, was not entitled to any share of the right while someone who had written half of a book was so entitled. There are difficulties in the wording.
It is my impression that the hon. Gentleman regards the amendment as a probing one. I hope that he will recognise that we are not closing our minds to the ideas and propositions that he puts forward. As I have given him the assurance that we shall consider his suggestions and that we are not seeking to exclude from PLR anyone who is not a single identifiable author, I hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Sproat: As the hon. Lady has given such cast-iron assurances that she will look again at this matter, and in view of the Government's generosity in giving concessions on every group of amendments today, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. James Hamiiton.]

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be furthered considered this day.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Ordered.
That the Standing Order of 22 November 1974 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Overseas Development be amended, by leaving out Mr. Bryan Davies and inserting Mr. Bruce Grocott.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — CHLORIDE METALS LIMITED, THORPE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I would not say that my profundity on the subject of lead pollution is very great. There has been much comment and much has been published about the subject in the last few months. Since there is a lead smelting plant in my constituency, further alarm has been created in the area, and I have received many complaints over the past 15 years. Chloride Metals Limited has been working in my area for the last 30 years.
This is a topical subject. The question of air pollution has, of course, been raised before in the House. Indeed, I recall a Ten-Minute Bill which was accepted by Parliament without a dissentient note. Everyone by now, therefore, realises that this is a serious matter. In view of what has been said and published over the past few months, considerable concern has been created in the Thorpe area.
I have attended some of the public gatherings. Now there is general public clamour, brought to a head by the atmospheric pollution which is claimed by scientists to have an injurious effect upon young children. Civic societies have joined in the clamour—indeed, all kinds of organisations have joined in. But there is difficulty in trying to ventilate the problem in areas where there has been little recognition of how the people feel. In consquence, a lot of responsibility falls on the local Member of Parliament.
Chloride Metals Limited has made application to extend its plant. That has aggravated the situation tremendously. The West Yorkshire county council sent the application to the Department of the Environment, which has passed it back. The West Yorkshire planning committee allowed the public to be present at meetings, but the committee shows little interest in the subject. This has caused consternation in the district.
I have been prompted to raise this matter not by the publicity but because


of the tremendous pressure about the subject from my constituents. I promised them that I would do whatever possible to seek further ventilation of the problem. Where do we go from here? We have had, as I have said, many public meetings, pressure has been brought to bear on the local authorities, and I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was quite a long time before I got a reply. He said that the Department would push the planning application back to the county authority. What concerns us is the granting of an extension when it is not known what the effects of atmospheric pollution will be from the present plant.
We have tried to bring this out into the open, but we have been denied the facts. We are not dogmatic about the situation. All that we are concerned about is getting the facts. We, contend that the present plans are not acceptable to possible new residents. That is also the opinion of the Leeds city council, which will not allow any more houses to be built within half a mile of the plant. Yet it appears that the extension is being allowed to proceed.
Most people have a general concern for the welfare of young children. Within half a mile of the plant are two schools. It is argued by scientists that lead pollution affects young children more than adults. It affects their intelligence, mentality and general brightness. One can understand that parents who live in close proximity to the plant want the Department of the Environment to do its job. It is there for the environmental purposes of the nation and should ensure that the public get the facts. That is why I am has failed to do so. That is why I am here tonight. I want to raise this matter as publicly as I can.
If the Leeds city council now says "No more building within half a mile", why on earth is it allowing the plant to be extended? What about those children who are attending the two schools? That is why there has been such public indignation and protestation from many societies, which seem to have been ignored completely. It appears to us that something has been kept behind the scenes.
I was rather disturbed by what I read in the Yorkshire Post, which the other day ran the following story:

Close observers of the lead debate in Britain are also despondent about what they feel are other forces at work, for whatever reason, to slow things down. A curious series of events have involved most of those people intimately involved in the subject.
Prof. Derek Bryce-Smith, noted critic of leaded petrol, a lecturer at Reading University, is convinced his telephone was tapped. Someone telephoned a contact of his, he said, pretending to be Prof. Derek Bryce-Smith and using information which could only have been obtained by listening in on an early telephone call he made.
The other prominent independent expert on, lead pollution in Britain, Dr. Robert Stephens of the chemistry department at Birmingham University, had his study gutted by fire at the end of 1977. Police established arson as the cause but never traced the culprit.
It is not for me to start quoting from papers that have been written by scientists. Nevertheless, I have a folder full of them. The trouble is that we cannot get to the bottom of this problem. I want to make it clear that I am not taking sides. All that I am doing is openly stating why the people of my constituency want the facts. Up to now they have failed to get them.
The letter that I received from the Department of the Environment said that the extension would go on, that the Department would monitor events, and that the Alkali Inspectorate would be involved. With all due respect to the Alkali Inspectorate, it is probably not quite up to it.
We must prove that there will be no harmful effects to children or adults it the plant is extended. That is the crux of the matter, and I am at a loss to understand why to some extent we have been ignored by the Ministry.
In reply to a recent written question, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security said:
My Department is currently sponsoring, or has sponsored in the last few years, the following studies relevant to the health consequences of lead in the air: …
Relationship between blood lead levels, general intelligence, reading ability and behaviour disorders in children under 17 years of age in an area of London exposed to undue amounts of lead from a smelter."—[Official Report, 3 August 1978; Vol 955, c. 694.]
It is apparent that some investigation is going on. All that I am asking is whether it is possible to stop the extension of the smelting plant until the investigations have been carried out.
It the Department is prepared to tell the people of my constituency "You can rest assured that there will be no harmful effects upon your children or adults" that may alter the position entirely.
So far such assurances have not been forthcoming. That is why I asked for this debate. There was a public meeting only two or three weeks ago which I attended. It was decided that an injunction be sought. The people are writing to the Ombudsman and they asked me whether I would raise the matter on the Adjournment. They are asking only for clarification of the position. They are not being dogmatic. We simply want to know the facts, and so far we have not had them.
I should like the Department to have more power than it has now. I last initiated an Adjournment debate at about five o'clock one morning about opencast operations. I believe that all opencast inquiries should be dealt with by the Department of the Environment, but they are dealt with by the Department of Energy. That is entirely wrong. When the Department of the Environment now tells me "Let the extension go on, and we shall see what happens", it is putting the cart before the horse.
I hope that my hon. Friend will make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we want the facts. I should like scientists to be brought in. We know that scientists at Birmingham university and Reading are keenly interested in the matter. If we can have assurances, at least it will prove that the Department is really interested.
The matter has been debated many times in the past two or three weeks. A Ten-Minute Bill was introduced only yesterday. There is general public concern. There is no dissentient voice.
I am concerned about the people who live in Thorpe and round about. I live only about three miles away.
It is all right talking about raising a chimney, but not all the fumes go up the chimney. If the chimney is raised, the dispersal is further and thinner. But it will affect other areas.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take cognisance of what has been said. There is general alarm in the area. It is his duty. He is their Minister. The Department exists for the public's benefit. To satisfy the public he should say "Let

us have all the facts. We shall have all the best brains, all the people who are knowledgeable about the subject. Let us discuss the issue." The Department should be more concerned. It has never made any statement about location and dispersal of the plants. How big should a plant be, and should it be allowed to expand? Location is very important, as is the size of plants, and this is an issue about which I hope that my hon. Friend will see whether anything can be done.
There is planning permission to extend the works, and it may be that in three or four years the company will make another application. Where is it to stop? This is why I have brought this matter to my hon. Friend's notice, and I hope that he can give me some information tonight which will allay the fears of my constituents.

12.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) for providing this opportunity for a debate on Chloride Metals Limited. I congratulate him on the comparatively early hour of this Adjournment debate. When I last replied to a debate initiated by him, as he said, it was at five o'clock in the morning.
I know that people in the area are rightly concerned about the process of lead smelting, as are the Government, and I emphasise that there has been great Government concern for a long time. This Government and previous Governments, too, have been concerned, and Government publications on lead in the environment and its significance to man and on lead pollution in Birmingham were published by this Government long before there was any controversy in the House.
The Ten-Minute Bill yesterday was not given approval by this House. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) was given permission to bring in a Bill to reduce lead in petrol from 0·40 grams to 0·15 grams per cubic litre by 1982. That Bill has still to be debated by this House.
At the moment, West Yorkshire metropolitan county council is considering a planning application for an extension to the works. It has not been granted. It


still has to go before the county council, and it is the subject of much local controversy. I accept that that is so. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the merits of this or any other planning application at this stage. I cannot discount the possibility that the county council will reject the application, in which case the firm could appeal. If that happened, the appeal would come to my right hon. Friend in his quasi-judicial capacity. So that makes some difficulties for me.
May I comment on these recurring demands for the call-in of almost every town planning application that is made? My hon. Friend has talked about my Department having more power. Dozens of district councils are demanding that we call in various projects, whether they be for waste disposal tips or anything else. The general argument is that Whitehall does not know best and that it is the people on the spot who know best. I am sure that our decision to leave this matter to the county council is the right one.
I hope that I can provide some reply to the matters raised by my hon. Friend. This lead works at Thorpe has been in operation for about 20 years. It is engaged in the production of lead from scrap. Waste lead, including old batteries, is melted in a special furnace and converted into ingots. Some of the lead is also melted with flux to produce refined lead. At present, there are two smelting furnaces, one with a 219 ft. chimney and the other with a 110 ft. chimney. The works processes some 35,000 tons of scrap a year and operates on a continuous basis—24 hours a day and 365 days a year.
The smelting of lead is a scheduled process under the Alkali Act 1906, and the works is therefore registered with Her Majesty's Clean Air and Alkali Inspectorate. The firm, Chloride Metals, is required by the Alkali Act to use the best practicable means of preventing the discharge of noxious gases into the atmosphere and for rendering such gases, where discharged, harmless and inoffensive. If the Alkali Inspectorate is not satisfied that the best practicable means are being operated, it takes proceedings against the firm.
I suggest that this approach to pollution control of the best practicable

means, endorsed by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution in its fifth report, is especially appropriate in such cases as this. It is flexible and it is a dynamic system which enables the electorate to update the requirements in the light of any new knowledge on the effects of atmospheric lead and in the light of any new technology by which emissions might be controlled more effectively.
Thus, the legal and administrative framework is sound. My understanding is that control is being effectively applied in practice also. Chloride Metals has liaised well with the Alkali Inspectorate on the implementation of emission controls at the existing works. It has a health and safety committee and it has a full-time health and safety representative. The company is, of course, concerned for the safety of the work force as well as that of local inhabitants.
Emissions from the chimneys are regularly monitored by the inspectorate, which is satisfied that concentrations of lead in the flue gases are well within its recommendations. I understand also from the inspectorate that the level of what I might call housekeeping by Chloride Metals is good. This can be as important as controlling emissions from the chimneys. For instance, it is important to spray gas to prevent it from being blown by the wind and to wash the wheels of vehicles leaving the site. This housekeeping is overseen not only by the Alkali Inspectorate but also by the factory inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive.
My hon. Friend is quite right to say that not all lead pollution comes out of the chimneys. There is leakage at some of the older factories in particular, and there is some lead pollution in the soil as a result. I shall come to that in a moment.
However, strict controls and good housekeeping do not in themselves mean that there is no pollution problem. Much depends, for example, on the extent to which airborne lead disperses in the local atmosphere, for its effects become insignificant if concentrations are sufficiently low where actual exposure occurs. I understand from the environmental health department of Leeds district council that it has carried out a number of surveys on the effects of lead in the local environment. These surveys started with a check


on blood levels in children in 1972 and have included monitoring of levels in soil and crops, as well as airborne concentrations. As I understand it, the results show that the concentrations of airborne lead are not above those typical of streets in all cities.
Soil concentrations are high in the immediate vicinity of the works, or any other lead works, but fall off rapidly as the distance increases. I understand that a possible danger might arise from grazing on the reclaimed land on the nearby Robin Hood colliery tip site, and the council is considering whether this should be stopped. I am sure that the county council will bear all this in mind when considering whether an extension should be built.
I think it desirable that further monitoring should be carried out in the vicinity of the works, as the results of the surveys to date have not been conclusive.

Mr. Albert Roberts: What would my hon. Friend say about the houses within, say, 200 yards of the plant? People there grow their vegetables and fruit. Would he say that they should not eat those vegetables or fruit?

Mr. Marks: I am not prepared to say that at the moment, but I must remind my hon. Friend that there are many other examples of soil pollution. We have had an example recently in Somerset of pollution of the soil from works operating as long as 200 years ago. In that case, of course, the Department is being accused of being scare mongering and too fussy. But we look very carefully indeed at these matters.
Thorpe has been selected as one of the sites for an EEC survey on blood levels. Part of this EEC work involves sites where people may be exposed to significant sources of lead in their local environment. My Department, in agreement with the local authority, chose Thorpe as a site for further investigation, and the survey is to be carried out this spring in the area of the Chloride Metals works at Thorpe. At the present time, it is hoped that blood samples will be taken from at least 300 children under 12, plus all lead workers' children, and it is possible that this survey may be extended to include a larger number of children. Most of the blood samples will come from people within 1,000 yards of the lead

works, but surveys will also be carried out on a comparable group of children in the Tingley area.
At the same time as the blood lead survey, my Department has arranged with Warren Spring laboratory to carry out air lead sampling in the same vicinity. Four sites will be used. It is also proposed that selective dust samples in houses will also be taken.
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a problem. It affects the children of lead workers in particular, and lead in dust is a problem that we have to look at.
Additionally, the environmental health department of Leeds council is planning to embark on its own programme of local environmental monitoring in the vicinity. The council has yet to approve the funding of this programme, but I hope that the approval will be forthcoming. The monitoring of blood and environmental lead levels should provide a much clearer picture of any possible health hazard before any extension of the works goes ahead.
I turn now to the planning application by Chloride Metals Limited. This application was originally made to Leeds metropolitan district council. That council referred it to West Yorkshire metropolitan county council for decision as it would—if approved—have constituted a departure from the development plan for the area.
Again, because a departure from the plan was involved, the application was referred to the Secretary of State for him to consider whether he should call it in for his own decision. He decided earlier this month that it would not be appropriate to do so, and I understand that my hon. Friend received a letter on 4 January explaining the reasons. In brief, the application—I accept that it is of great local importance—does not raise issues of wider national importance of a nature which cannot be satisfactorily dealt with by a county council of the power and quality of South Yorkshire county council. I am sure it would not be welcomed if the Department were to intervene in what are essentially local decisions.
The decision, therefore, is for the county council. It has still not been taken. I am confident that the council will take


full account of all the representations that have been made to it and give proper weight to all the various planning considerations—including the existence of other land uses in the area. But whatever decision the council arrives at will not relate to detailed air pollution controls. These remain a matter for the Alkali Inspectorate, which will continue to require the use of "the best practical means". If approval is given, the inspectorate will examine before the building and during the building and when it is completed. For instance, the proposed new extension includes a considerably higher chimney—450 ft. There will be scope for channelling, existing, as well as new, gases through the new chimney, so that it may well achieve a better dispersion of the total from the factory.
It should not, therefore, he assumed that an increase in the capacity of the works means an increase in any local hazard to health. The Alkali Inspectorate, in setting its requirements, will be able to take account of the results of the monitoring that is now going forward.
Perhaps I might now set all this in the broader context of the Government's policy on lead. I do not want to go into too much detail because the matter was debated at great length on 12 December when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave a full account of the Government's position. But it would be wrong to discuss one particular source of lead in isolation, especially as atmospheric lead makes a relatively minor contribution to lead in blood levels.
We take in lead not only from the air but also, and generally to a much greater degree, from food and from water. For most people, about 10 per cent. of blood lead comes from airborne lead inhaled. Diet contributes about two-thirds. For this reason, successive Governments have made a concerted effort to deal with the problem across the board.
The Government published in 1974 a comprehensive review of lead in the environment, in the foreword to which Anthony Crosland set out the guiding principles. He stated that the Government's objective was to ensure that, while the proper use of lead was not unnecessarily curtailed, the health of all sections

of the community should not be put at risk and that every practicable measure should be taken to reduce exposure.
That remains Government policy. Action has already been taken to limit the lead content of foods, with special attention given to baby foods, of toys, of paint—once a major source of hazard to young children—of pottery glazes and of cosmetics, and the limit to the lead content of petrol has been progressively reduced so that total emissions from vehicles are no higher than they were several years ago, despite the increase in the number of vehicles.
The Government are preparing fresh regulations to reduce the limits on lead in a whole range of foods and also on lead in the workplace. We have well in hand a major exercise to identify areas where levels of lead in tap water are high and to deal with the problem by treating the water. If necessary, lead piping will be replaced. The latest in the series of regulations aimed at reducing the limit of lead in petrol to 0·40 g per litre on 1 January 1981 was laid before the House only this month.
In addition, the Government have a programme of research into lead pollution. A report on work at Harwell into lead pollution from vehicles which received much recent publicity formed part of the programme. The Harwell work is important because it suggests that people may absorb into their bodies more of the lead present in the air than had previously been thought. People exposed to very exceptional levels of lead in the air may even take up a similar amount from that source to that which they take in from food. None the less, it is also important to notice that the report says that for the great majority of people airborne lead contributes only about 10 per cent. of their total intake.
What we know of levels of lead pollution in this country suggests that, generally, levels in people's blood are within, and usually well within, the level regarded by the World Health Organisation as the normal upper limit. Recent studies published in the United States and Germany suggest that lower levels in children's blood may affect the level of learning and behavioural development. The Government take these suggestions


very seriously indeed. The fact is, however, that they are by no means unreservedly accepted by scientists as a whole, and in some cases—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening,

and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Second Reading Committee

Wednesday 24 January 1979

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Miss Janet Fookes (in the Chair)


Bishop, Mr. E. S. (Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)
Lewis, Mr. Ron (Carlisle)



More, Mr. Jasper (Ludlow)



Parker, Mr. John (Dagenham)


Buchanan, Mr. Richard (Glasgow, Springburn)
Peyton, Mr. John (Yeovil)



Roderick, Mr. Caerwyn E. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cormack, Mr. Patrick (Staffordshire, South-West)




Stradling Thomas, Mr. John (Monmouth)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, East)
Thompson, Mr. George (Galloway)


Hardy, Mr. Peter (Rother Valley)
Watkinson, Mr. John (Gloucestershire, West)


Hastings, Mr. Stephen (Mid-Bedford-Shire)




Wilson, Mr. William (Conventry, South-East)


Jopling, Mr. Michael (Westmorland)

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Forestry Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
Perhaps I may summarise the extent of the Bill in a few words by saying that the first objective of this short Bill is to correct a deficiency in the powers of the Forestry Commissioners to provide grants and loans for forestry purposes—in other words, to make the law what everyone thought it had been for a long time. The second objective is to metricate imperial measurements in the Forestry Act 1967 and to provide enabling powers to metricate those in other forestry legislation. The Bill therefore has a limited but important function. Hon. Members may be interested to know that it has been through all stages up to Third Reading in the other place.
That is the general background, but I have a responsibility to give the Committee a little more detail as to the intention of the Bill.
Since their establishment under the Forestry Act 1919, the Forestry Commissioners have had powers to make advances by way of grants or loan, or both, to persons in respect of the afforestation, including replanting, of land belonging to such persons. These powers were subsequently consolidated in section 4 of the Forestry Act 1967, and since before the Second World War it had been generally assumed that they were wide enough to include the management of land for forestry purposes, as well as the planting and replanting of trees on that land. Management was considered to include the planning stage of establishing a plantation; the preparatory work leading to planting or replanting, such as ploughing and fencing; and subsequent operations such as the protection of the


plantations from fire, pests and diseases, the upkeep of fences and drains, fertilising, and harvesting the timber either as thinnings or as the final crop.
With the support of successive Governments and, since 1951, subject to Treasury approval, the Commissioners have from time to time introduced schemes to encourage the rehabilitation of old woodlands and the planting of new ones. These have included a scrub clearance grant, and a thinning grant that was designed to help with the removal of un-remunerative early thinnings in order to improve the crop. Neither of these schemes is still available, but I have mentioned them to illustrate the type of management operation that has been grant-aided in the past.
Since 1948, the main source of assistance has been the dedication scheme, under which woodland owners enter into long-term legal commitments in return for grants. At first there were two bases—basis I and basis II. Neither of these is now open to new applications, but there are still continuing commitments, legally binding on owners and the Commissioners, involving the payment of grants. Under basis I, owners receive 25 per cent. of their net approved annual expenditure, including expenditure on management, until the woodlands become self-supporting. Under basis II, owners receive a flat rate planning grant and, until 1958, they also received a maintenance grant for the first 15 years in the life of a plantation. In 1958 the maintenance grant was replaced by an annual management grant which has no specific time limit. Basis II remained more or less unchanged until 1972, when all the Commission's grant schemes then existing were closed to new applications.
Most grant-aided woodlands—amounting to some 490,000 hectares—are still managed under the basis II scheme, and last year these attracted management grants totalling about £720,000. Basis III of the dedication scheme, which is operative, was introduced in 1974. Initially the financial assistance available under it consisted only of a planting grant, but an annual management grant was introduced from 1 October 1977. The opportunity was also taken in October 1977 to reintroduce an improved small woods scheme, and the general

level of forestry grants was significantly increased.
The Commissioners recently sought legal advice regarding the precise extent of their powers to give grants and loans under section 4 of the Forestry Act 1967, and were advised that those powers do not, as had been assumed, cover financial help towards the management of a forest as distinct from its planting or replanting. Grants and loans provided by the Commissioners for management operations both before and after the passing of the Forestry Act 1967, including the new basis III management grant introduced as recently as October 1977, are therefore without statutory authority.
With the agreement of the Treasury, grants are still being paid and expenditure now rests on the temporary authority of the Appropriation Act. Clause 1 of the Bill is intended to correct the deficiency by restating the Commissioners' powers to make grants and loans to include those made for management purposes. The wording is more concise than the wording of section 4 of the Forestry Act 1967, but it will allow grants or loans, or both, to be made for forestry purposes, whether in the form of a lump sum or by instalments, and for such period of time and on such terms as the Commissioners decide, subject to Treasury approval.
Clause 1 also clarifies the Commissioners' powers to assist lessees, in addition to owners of land. The present wording of section 4 of the 1967 Act does not make this clear, although, in fact, the Commissioners, with the benefit of legal advice, have been able in England and Wales to grant-aid lessees directly, and in Scotland by suitable legal arrangements. The clause simply confirms the power already possessed by the Commissioners to aid lessees direct in England and Wales, and brings their powers in Scotland into line, which will simplify the administrative procedures for aiding lessees of land in Scotland.
Clause 2 provides for the substitution of metric for imperial units of measurement in the Forestry Act 1967, and for powers to enable the Forestry Commissioners by regulations to amend other existing forestry legislation. The changes proposed for the Forestry Act 1967 are technical in nature, and have been fully accepted by the Home Grown Timber


Advisory Committee—comprising all sectors of the forestry industry, including the home timber trade—and individually by organisations representing woodland owners, the timber trade and other interests. All but one of the changes affect the felling licensing provisions in section 9 of the 1967 Act. As these provisions are still expressed in imperial measurements, licensing procedures are currently conducted in imperial terms, but this is out of step with general usage as the Forestry Commission went metric in 1971 and metric measurements have since been widely adopted in the forestry industry and the timber trade.
The metric measurements being substituted for the existing imperial ones correspond as closely as possible to those contained in the Forestry Act 1967, subject only to minor variations consistent with current mensuration conventions in forestry. I must emphasise that only the system of measurement is being changed; in no case will the size or volume of trees subject to felling licences be altered except to a very marginal extent, and the effect, in practical terms, will be insignificant.
The other forestry legislation referred to in clause 2, subsections (2) to (5) deals with the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, both of which are administered by the Forestry Commissioners. The Bill does not amend the relevant Acts directly for reasons of hybridity, and therefore it is intended that the Commissioners shall have power to make the desired amendments by regulations. The nearest metric equivalents will be substituted for the present imperial measurements, subject to minor rounding and to consultation with the interests concerned.

10.40 a.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I think that the whole Committee will be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his lucid explanation of the Bill, to which I should like to give a reasonably friendly welcome. It is an unusual Bill in two respects. It goes against the current to which we are accustomed. It is both brief—and it is to be welcomed on that account—and comprehensible, which makes it quite unusual.
I do not wish, therefore, to delay the passage of the Bill, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree with me in welcoming it. Indeed, for once, I rather

regret that it is as modest as it is and so completely unambitious. However, it offers an opportunity to make a few comments on the whole subject of forestry policy.
This country produces about 8 per cent. of its requirements of timber, and we have done little to improve upon that in recent years. We have apparently learned little or nothing from our disastrous experience following the rise in oil prices.
Before I leave the subject of imports, perhaps I should mention how high timber is upon our list of imports. It comes third after food and oil. I have no doubt that some intelligence and determination to pursue a long-term policy here would produce some useful results for our balance of payments.
We have a further spur to constructive activity in the devastation that has recently been caused by Dutch elm disease. Much of our countryside, particularly where I come from in the South-West, presents the spectacle of a First World War landscape. I hope that, some time or other, we shall address ourselves seriously to this severe problem.
I do not believe that forestry policy contains any source of pride for either party or for the Government's advisers in the Treasury and the Inland Revenue. There have been far too many chops and changes. It would appear that those who strut upon the political stage have found it difficult to reconcile themselves to the fact that the tree cycle is rather long and that chops and changes in forestry policy more often than not are very damaging indeed.
I regard the increased activity in forestry as a useful opportunity for employment and the creation of wealth in the countryside. One of the increasingly worrying problems of the countryside is the vicious circle that exists from the lessening of the amenities that can be enjoyed there to the reduction of employment opportunities. These two factors chase each other in a vicious spiral.
I look forward—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he has any further remarks to make, will look forward with me—to the development of a partnership between agriculture and forestry to replace the present hostility that one often finds. I have no doubt that the Forestry


Commission has an important role to play here, but I believe that it will have to be careful to avoid the dangerous habits to which only too often large organisations fall prey. They are inclined to believe that if they possess the power and the opportunity to do something, they need not worry about consultation and they need not bother to persuade anybody. They just do what they want, without considering other people.
I believe that the cause of forestry, intelligently pursued, can be of great assistance to small farmers and a source of enrichment to them, particularly those in upland areas who have only limited opportunities of making money and who have to contend with all sorts of obstacles and difficulties in the modern world. The Forestry Commission has a particular responsibility to help such people exploit their opportunities.
I do not wish to detain the Committee and I wish the Bill well. I should like to end my brief remarks with a plea that perhaps, on this very modest and totally unambitious foundation, we may base—I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) because his attitude has long been constructive—a sensible policy that will influence and be supported by all parties and that, at long last, there will be a realisation of how disastrously silly the activities of politicians can be when they chop and change policy in a matter such as this.
There is no comparable country in the world, with such an advantageous climate, that makes such a rotten and pathetic contribution to its forestry needs. With those words, I should like to wish the Bill well and to speed it on its way.

10.47 a.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Were the Bill merely to contain clause 2, it would provide us with the opportunity to hold a memorial meeting for the acre. I confess that I do not view that clause with any great enthusiasm. I can see an acre. I know what it is. I find it much more difficult to assess a hectare by the eye.
It may be that the bureaucrats feel that this sort of provision will remove the acre. However, while Yorkshire continues to play cricket on a 22-yard wicket, I am grateful even for Mr. Kerry

Packer's attention to that sport. Yorkshire's time will come again; perhaps that of the acre will not.
A 22-yard pitch is one-tenth of a furlong. Opposition Members who have agricultural interests will understand the roots of the acre's origin and that of the other land measurements. I suspect that while the length of a cricket pitch is still 22 yards, the bureaucrats will not be entirely satisfied with that.
However, clause 1 is perhaps the most important part of the Bill, which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, is not a controversial measure. Nevertheless, there are a number of points that I should like to make, although I think that first it would be proper to respond to some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).
He is right to complain about and to condemn the chopping and changing policies of politicians who, all too often, have given only short-term consideration to various matters, particularly in recent years. However, I should point out that the most severe chopping and changing in forestry policy came about in the lifetime of the previous Conservative Government.
I do not wish to be controversial, but those Opposition Members who served on the Front Bench of that Administration—I say that deliberately, because I wish to acquit those Conservative Back Benchers who are present—were guilty of the most remarkable folly when they published a document, I think in July 1972, which, as Opposition Members will, I believe, agree, saw no prospect whatever for economic forestry in Britain. They relied upon the Treasury.
The right hon. Gentleman made a critical passing reference to the Treasury with which I entirely agree. Within some five or six weeks of that policy being announced, the Russians, perhaps to pay for the imports of grain following the collapse of their harvest, greatly increased their timber prices, with the result that that Treasury cost-benefit analysis was almost stillborn.
It took a Labour Government, coming to power later, to remedy that appalling misjudgment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will not object to our putting right that serious defect.

Mr. Peyton: I particularly avoided the rather unattractive partisan note which the hon. Gentleman is now striking. I said that no party had any reason for pride at all. The hon. Gentleman has been only too content to go along the Treasury path in this matter. If he intends to press the partisan element, which I certainly did not want to do, I would say that his own Government's embarkation on capital transfer tax and all that went with it was equally unhelpful. But I do not want to go into that matter this morning.

Mr. Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman may recall that I spoke in debate on the Finance Bill 1975 and criticised the capital transfer tax provisions, particularly in their application to forestry, but also in their application to farming. I make the point because it is necessary that we on the Labour Benches, who are usually regarded as being ill informed on these matters and who are not entirely free from errors of judgment in our approach to rural activities, should occasionally emphasise that our record in these matters is not entirely a black one. I believe that the situation regarding forestry today is rather better than it was when the Labour Government took office in 1974. It is necessary for us to make that point.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend a number of questions, all relating to clause I, and, I think, all in order. One point reinforces those already made regarding the need to expand timber production in Britain. In 1945, some experts estimated that by 1980 we should be producing between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of our timber requirement. As the right hon. Member for Yeovil said, last year and the year before we produced about 8 per cent. of our requirement. That means that the 1945 estimates are grievously in error. However, that is understandable, because those concerned then did not forecast the rate of economic growth which the world has experienced since then. Their total estimates of quantities may have been correct, but the share was clearly grossly deficient.
Today experts are forecasting that we can reach the same level of sufficiency in 25 or 30 years' time as they suggested we could reach in 1945. I do not think that the world will experience the same rate of economic growth in the 1980s and

1990s as was experienced during the 1950s and 1960s, but that could be an underestimate.
The problem is that by the end of the century our traditional suppliers of timber will not be able to meet current demand, and that presents many problems. I want to ask my right. hon. Friend whether clause 1(2) can be made relevant to that problem, because we shall have to look for timber, even if we expand our own production, to the tropical forests of the world.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Those are being chopped down.

Mr. Hardy: I ask my right hon. Friend whether the grants can cover that consideration.
Recently I discussed the question of tropical forestry with some of the people who work at the Royal Botanic Gardens—largely because the Council of Europe agricultural committee, of which I am vice-chairman, will be considering the matter next week. I believe that tropical forestry presents a very serious problem, of which the Western world is not yet taking sufficient account. Unless the clearing of tropical forests is carried out sensitively and sensibly—and it is not being carried out in such a way at present—by the end of the century, in the lifetime of some right hon. and hon. Members present and certainly in the lifetime of our children, that resource will, to a large extent, have been ruined.
Apparently much of the tropical forest, luxuriant though it may appear, grows on very poor soil. But if the tree is felled and if the branches and so on are burnt, as frequently happens, the soil is left without nutrient, and in the first heavy rainfall it is likely to be washed away. The activities of some companies of the Western world in removing the tropical forest in an unscientific and extremely greedy way will certainly cause problems.
I believe that Britain, with its considerable experience of woodland ownership and management, and with the Forestry Commission as a very long-established body, could be fully involved in the research and international deliberation which needs to be carried out with considerable vigour. I hope that subsection (2) of clause 1 can be used in part to


promote this particular purpose. The Forestry Commission, as the forest authority, has an obligation to ensure that this country has continuing supplies of timber products. That is important.
I have two or three other questions which I consider important. There is reference in the annual report of the Forestry Commission to colliery spoil heaps and derelict land. I have been persuaded over a number of years that we could produce a great deal more timber by proper forestation on derelict areas. In my constituency there are colliery spoil heaps which produce good-quality timber. Hon. Members who drive on the M1 will notice that two or three miles north of the Harthill-Woodall service area, and two or three miles off the road, in the parish of Harthill in my constituency, there is a reclaimed colliery spoil heap with some impressive timber which has developed in the last seven or eight years.
I believe that proper forestation on derelict areas could be carried out on a much greater scale, and I hope that the Ministry will encourage the Forestry Commission to be substantially involved, or at least to ensure, if it is not prepared to be involved itself, that either other public bodies or private developers carry out plantation in such areas.
The total acreage available is substantial. The amount of derelict land cleared during the period 1975–79 in my constituency alone totalled almost 400 acres, at a cost to the State of £900,000. I believe that part of that investment should be reflected in a large crop of timber in 20 or 30 years' time. I hope that my right hon. Friend will comment on the encouragement which the Minister of Agriculture is giving to the Forestry Commission for this purpose. I notice that field trials are being held, and I hope that the Forestry Commission will not be limited in its expenditure in this area.
There are two further questions that I wish to ask my right hon. Friend. If he cannot reply this morning, I would be delighted if he could arrange for me to receive a reply. The report of the Forestry Commission states that there was a drop in demand for small diameter roundwood in the period ended March 1978. This seems surprising to me. If we meet only 8 per cent. of our home

demand, it is obvious that should there be any small decline in demand for any particular kind of timber which is produced in the United Kingdom, it should affect our import bill rather than our levels of home production. I hope that home production can be sustained, and that if there is any dip in demand it will merely be reflected in a lower import bill, because the import bill for timber and timber products, at £2 billion a year, is ridiculously high.
The last question I wish to ask is in regard to the awaited directive from the European Economic Community. This has been bouncing about for a very long time. Can my right hon. Friend say when we can expect that directive to be published and whether that directive will mean that the burden on the taxpayer of clause 1 will be in any way reduced, since it would be reasonable to suppose that, as we are net losers on the common agricultural policy, we ought to be striving to be net gainers on a common forestry policy, if one is ever established? Certainly, it would be useful for the Committee to have some information about the effect of an EEC directive on the total expenditure which the British taxpayer would properly incur in supporting forestry, because forestry needs to be vigorously supported.

11 a.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) highlighted the very bad advice that the Treasury has given to the forestry industry of this country. But I think that he was less than fair to my right hon. Friends who were on the Front Bench in the 1970s in blaming them for the loss of planting, particularly in the private sector, when paragraph 83 of the recent Forestry Commission report states;
We are sorry to have to report a further drop in new planting by private woodland owners.
It is true that the Treasury preduced a cost-effectiveness study on timber production which, as the hon. Gentleman said, proved to be out of date almost before it was published. What is far more telling about the situation is contained in a review, "The Wood Production Outlook in Britain", contained in a document issued in November, which states:
The estimated average rate of new planting by the Commission and the private sector


since 1919 has been 15,000 hectares per annum while the peaks achieved over a 3 year period in the early 1970s averaged about 40,000 hectares per annum.
In other words, a disastrous change has happened—since we had a Labour Government.
When, under a taxation system, an arrangement is made for someone to plant trees which it is known will not be harvested for 50, 60, 70 or 80 years and then during the lifetime of that plantation that taxation system is altered, surely it is absolute crass stupidity to make such a change. If one wants to alter a taxation system, let it be altered for the new plantation, so that people know on what basis they are to operate. If one starts to tamper with the taxation system half-way through the life of a plantation, one is bound to have disaster. That is what the present Government have achieved.
I have three short questions to ask the Minister of State about whether the provisions, particularly of clause I, can help with the crises that we have seen. We need to do something more, for example, to get rid of Dutch elm disease and to replace trees which have died. I understand from the Forestry Commission report that about 11 million out of 23 million elms in the southern part of Britain have died. Fortunately, we in Scotland are not so badly off; I believe that we have only about 20,000 dead elms out of an estimated population of 2 million to 3 million. But there is a need to do something about getting rid of the dead elm trees and making certain that the hedgerows are replaced by something that will prove satisfactory in the long run.
It is also interesting to see in the Forestry Commission report mention of snow damage last year, particularly in the north-east of Scotland, where we had heavy snow. I was interested to see pictures on television of helicopters being used in European forests to remove snow from trees in order to alleviate damage. This brings to mind the question whether there is not a necessity for useful Government help in an area thus affected to save the damaged trees. One would need provisions to allow a special grant for snow clearance in a certain area at a certain time. Could this be done under clause 1?
My other point concerns the apparent lack of production forecasts for the private sector of forestry. Again, this is something which calls for a short-term operation to get the forecasts produced—particularly on existing plantations, which might require a little extra finance—as a once-for-all effort and not a continuing one.
There was an article about private woodland production in the journal of the Royal Scottish Forestry Society published in October last year. The article, by Mr. R. B. Tozer, states:
Production forecasts offer a considerable amount of useful information. Regrettably, in the private sector very little information is available on the likely level of future production. While there are many reasons for this, I believe that if such information were available, the private sector would be in a much stronger position in influencing such factors as the location of new wood-using industries and in negotiating long term contracts with wood users.
That, again, is something that might require help on a once-for-all basis, not a continuing one, and I wonder whether that would be possible.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. John Parker: I should like to follow what has been said about the need for a more ambitious approach to forestry, although I welcome the Bill as a minor advance.
We should try to put aside party battles on this issue. I take the view that the country needs a comprehensive policy for unification of planting by the Forestry Commission and by private woodland owners. I suggest that the two parties should try to come to some agreement on a 50-year programme of planting which would not be interrupted by any change of Government or Minister and would not allow the Treasury to upset any such agreement.
As my hon. Friend said, we need a big planting programme to double the hectarage under forestry in the next 50 years. An imaginative programme of that kind would interest foresters and the country as a whole, because it would demonstrate the real needs of the nation and show what could be done for the countryside as well as for our economy in terms of reduced imports. I suggest that there should be some kind of conference between the Forestry Commission


and woodland owners and between the Front Benches, or those interested in forestry, to agree such a programme and to put it over.
That, however, would mean the need to acquire land, and that is the great difficulty. This is a small island and there are many claims on land. Land has risen in price and it is difficult both for the Commission and for private owners to acquire land for forestry purposes.

Mr. Peyton: I wish to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) about possible all-party agreement. I said that I welcomed the Bill originally as a small foundation for a different approach from the foolish approach of the past. I should like to respond to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, and I hope the Minister of State will take note of this point. If the Government were to take any initiative on this subject and to make proposals on which we could found a policy which might endure against the changes of political wind from time to time and might also stand against the dogmas of the Treasury, we should be glad to give it careful and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Parker: I am grateful for the comments made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I hope that we can get discussions going and reach some kind of agreement. It is of vital importance.
The subject of land has to be seriously considered. As I said, this is a small island and there are many claims on the use of land. I do not wish to enter into conflict between agriculture and forestry. We must have policies which reconcile the claims of both.
I welcome the grants to small woodlands and forests which will encourage farmers, especially in the upland areas, to afforest land. From an amenity point of view, it is advantageous to have small areas afforested, and that could go ahead.
But we have to face the needs not only of agriculture but of a large urban population who want to enjoy the countryside—and so they should. Many people enjoy woodland walks. Much has been done by the Forestry Commission,

and now by a number of private owners, to enable people to enjoy the forests.
Some amenity groups are opposed to the use of land for forestry. Many of the people who object to the use of land for forestry take the view that there should be no alteration in land use. But we cannot put the land into storage and never change its use. It must be used and developed as the needs of the country as a whole change.
Of course, the best features of our landscape need to be preserved. The National Trust, for example, has a constructive policy with regard to the Lake District. It provides financial assistance for sheep rearing, which is important, in order to keep the land clear of scrub so that people may enjoy walking there. But some of the proposals put forward by amenity societies, based largely in the towns, seem to ignore the needs of the countryside and of country people.
I have been a keen rambler in the past. There are large sections of open country—the whole of the coastline and all the areas above the treeline which are bound to remain free from trees—where people can enjoy walks in their leisure time. It is only reasonable that some of the areas which do not come in those categories should be made available for planting. Therefore, we must fight, by way of publicity, what I call the anti-conifer brigade.
I agree that in the early stages of planting the Forestry Commission made many mistakes by blanketing hillsides and so on. But since it had the advice of Dame Sylvia Crowe and her successors, much more constructive policies of planting followed. Indeed, many private owners, who plant on a large scale, also take account of advice on landscaping when carrying out their planting.
Mature forestry is very attractive from the town-dwellers' point of view. Forests tend to encourage an increase in wild life. Townspeople, who often do not know what they are talking about, frequently make the point that blanket forestry kills off all wild life. It does not. There is very little wild life on open moorland—birds or anything else. In a forest with trees of different ages all kinds of birds and other wild life will be found. That point needs making when attacks are made on the large-scale planting of conifers. It is a fact that many areas,


such as Tarn Hows in the Lake District which is almost a honeypot for tourists, are mainly conifer-planted.
I fully agree with the policy of the National Trust that in the lowlands, where suitable, deciduous trees should be planted. I welcome the scheme whereby the planting of such trees is encouraged. But, from the commercial point of view, we need to consider the need for many of the uplands regions to be planted with conifers if they are the only trees which will grow and produce timber in such areas.
We need a publicity programme by the Forestry Commission, the Government and woodland owners to contradict and silence any attempts to limit planting in areas where it should take place. I hope that the need for publicity will be looked at by the various interests, by private owners, by the Forestry Commission and by the Government as a whole.
I turn to a minor point. Clause 2(3) refers to
forest lands in England and Wales".
Perhaps it could be explained why Scotland was left out. Is Scottish law different on the point, or why does the provision not cover the whole United Kingdom?
I welcome the Bill and hope that it will be the prelude to further planting and to a constructive approach by the industry and by Government and Opposition to working out, say, a 50-year planting programme which, once it has been agreed, will be considered binding on whatever Government may be in office.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. George Thompson: I do not think that hon. Members should apologise for lengthening the deliberations of the Committee. We rarely have an opportunity to debate forestry in the House.
It is an infinitely subtle pleasure for a Member from one of the minority parties to see hon. Members on both sides of the Committee standing in white sheets confessing to the chopping and changing of forestry policy in the past decade by Governments of both parties.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) found a means of uniting both sides by blaming the Treasury, and I notice that hon. Members have then taken

the opportunity to unite in kicking the scapegoat. I do not wish to pursue that point, as I fear I may bring in a note of unpleasantness to the Committee. I always find that my meetings with foresters are pleasant occasions. Those men, who are used to an industry where they plant what others will reap, are not so prone to jump from one position to another and indulge in altercations as are those who work in other industries sometimes. A measure of consensus is certainly necessary in public policy for forestry, and I heartily agree with hon. Members on all sides of the Committee who have supported that view.
It is appropriate, in this early month of 1979, to wish the Forestry Commission many happy returns of the day, because 1979 is the sixtieth anniversary of the Commission. We owe it an immense debt for having come in to plant trees and provide employment in an area such as my own where the great estates had begun to disappear, where there was far less work for country people than there had been, and where the manpower in agriculture was also declining. We in Galloway have no cause to complain of the Forestry Commission's activities in providing employment.
This is a small Bill, and no doubt that is the reason why it was relegated to a Second Reading Committee. But that this was done is an unfortunate sign of the lack of general interest in forestry in the House of Commons. At least in another place it had its Second Reading on the Floor of the House. I do not know what forestry will do when another place is abolished—if, in fact, the people of England ever bring themselves to the point of ending so archaic an institution, to which they may, for all I know, be passionately attached.
I wonder, too, whether, if another place were abolished, certain noble Lords with forestry interests in Scotland would not then regret that they had opposed the devolution of forestry to the Scottish Assembly.
I am certain that, despite the resistance to that proposal, as soon as the Scottish Assembly shows that it is a powerful voice for Scottish interests and a powerful lever for moving Whitehall into action, these same people will be running to the Assembly to ask its help in getting proper


attention paid to forestry. I shall not blame them for doing so, but I shall blame them for resisting the Government's desire to devolve forestry in Scotland.
It has been rightly said that wood will be scarce and more expensive. I have looked into the communication from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council concerning forestry policy in the European Community—document 542/78 dated 20 December 1978—and I see that 20 per cent. of the land area in the EEC is forest. My own region of Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway, has now exceeded this percentage. I understand that we are now above 21 per cent. of forest. Yet I was astonished to find that every country in the EEC at present, without exception, is a net importer of timber. Only if Portugal enters the Community will we have one member country which is a net exporter.
These figures give us reason to pause, because they mean that the Community will still require to look to imports to satisfy the need for this most versatile raw material.
As to the British Isles, Scotland appears to be fairly well endowed, because 11 per cent. of its land surface is covered with trees, whereas only 7 per cent. is covered in England. Yet the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole is only 8 per cent. If we look at our EEC partners, we find that 20 per cent. of Belgium is under trees, 25 per cent. of France and 30 per cent. of Germany. But in Scandinavia—I think Scotland can look to Scandinavia for lessons, because it is far north—Sweden has 64 per cent. of its land under timber and Finland, incredibly, a massive 74 per cent. I often wonder how Finland can still manage to export butter to us and sell it cheaper in our shops than our own Scottish butter can be sold.
From the figures that I have recently received in parliamentary answers, the most worrying thing to emerge was that many of our woodlands are now very elderly and starting to decline. Only 16 per cent. of woodlands is under 50 years of age, so the message of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) should be very much taken to heart by the Government and we should proceed as rapidly as we can.
I am always amused and amazed that we sometimes have to pass Bills to correct defects in previous Acts, and I always find strange the amount of labour that is lavished upon the preparation of legislation. However, I shall certainly lend my aid to correcting this defect because I believe that management operations deserve aid.
Mention has been made of the problem of acquiring more land for forestry. It seems to me that there are two possibilities. The first is the acquisition of areas which are at present totally unproductive in any way. That would include the derelict industrial areas, about which the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) spoke.
But I was interested to read in the debate of the proceedings in another place that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe drew attention to the fact that there are vast areas of Scotland now lying unproductive. That is a refreshingly candid statement from the former chairman of the Forestry Commission. My impression has been that the Forestry Commission has been going very gently on this issue for a long time—no doubt because no Government have ever had the willpower to make it plain and do something about it, either by persuading landowners to put land into reasonable productive use or by acquiring the land compulsorily for management by the Forestry Commission. The other possibility is to encourage owner-occupiers of farms to plant trees.
I am not a lawyer and I am not very clear whether the person referred to in the Bill as a lessee is what I should call a tenant. However, I suppose that that is what the word means. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for Dagenham. We must avoid the blanket planting that has occurred in some areas certainly in Dumfries and in Galloway. The way to do that is by encouraging the owner-occupier to plant trees and, if it can be done, also to encourage the tenant to plant trees.
I understand that consultations are going on to see whether low-interest loans could be made—for instance, loans that would be repayable when the trees were felled. I urge the Minister to proceed with those consultations with all speed and to try to reach a satisfactory conclusion to them.
The problem of what to do with early thinnings is still with us. It seems to me that it is incredible folly to import cheap chipboard, simply because it is cheap, while allowing thinnings to rot at the rideside, or actually having to postpone thinning, which could lead to spoiling of the final crop for want of thinning at the right time.
I am constantly bombarded by people who complain about the lack of broad leaf planting. However, I am bound to defend the conifer. In that, I again join the hon. Member for Dagenham. To a generation that in my area has known no other type of forest except the coniferous, it is beautiful and it will be just as dear to that generation as the broad leafed woodland that we had from plantings in earlier centuries was to others.
After all, the conifer has been able to inspire the words "O Tannenbaum, O Tannenbaum"—although, regrettably, the tune has been used for another purpose—and we have been able to import the idea of the Christmas tree, which is such a pleasant companion during the 12 days of Christmas. Therefore, I see no reason why it should not be appreciated more generally.
It is certainly true that some of the people who complain have no idea how to grow trees. If they looked at broad leaf trees that exist in places where they really will not do, they would see perfectly clearly that the only sort of tree that will produce a reasonable crop is the conifer.
There is another matter that I should like to raise, because it has come up in the planning committee of our regional council. It is the question of Crown privilege, when the Forestry Commission is not bound to seek planning permission, and when the local authority charged with the responsibility for planning is unable to impose its wishes. I agree that the Forestry Commission always holds consultations and I am pretty certain that, if a planning authority were to manifest disapproval of a scheme, the Forestry Commission would give heed to its wishes. I do not wish to press the point; I raise it only so that the matter may be in the Government's mind.
I should pay tribute to the work that has been done by the Forestry Commission in respect of amenity. In my constituency we have a wild goat park, a

red deer park, a deer museum and a forest drive down the Raiders' Road, as it is called—from Clatteringshaws to the Bennan on Loch Ken. It is regrettable that, because the Forestry Commission has opened so much of its forests to the public, there was a forest fire in Glentrool. However, I am confident that the damage will be made good.
I should like to turn to the second clause of the Bill, and to the problem of metrication. Perhaps my previous remarks were not bound very closely to the first clause of the Bill but I hope that they were not too far from what the Bill is trying to correct.
I do not like metrication. I prefer the old ways, but that may be because for nearly seven years I was a forestry worker: two years as a labourer and five years as a forest surveyor. It was a humble job but it involved me in working with a chain, which was in fact one chain long. The chain, although it was 22 yards long, was not for the purposes of dividing into 22 yards or 66ft. We were not decimalised, we were contesimalised; there were 100 links in the chain. I suppose even here we must yield to the French Revolution, science and the spirit of geometry. I do so with reluctance. At least I have to shed a nostalgic tear, metaphorically speaking, for the chain. I do not regret having worked hundreds of thousands of chains in the service of the Forestry Commission.
I think we should record as a country our thanks to the Forestry Commission and to all its workers who have worked so hard to produce the national forest estate that we have at present and express the hope that both the Forestry Commission and the private owner will be allowed to go ahead in building up the forest estate in Scotland to the million acres that the Scottish National Party would wish to see established there.

11.32 a.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: It is with some hesitation that I enter into a forestry debate because hon. Members will know that I have hardly a single tree in my constituency. However, I am a member of the Forestry Committee simply because my ancestors did quite a lot around Perthshire to plant forests, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr.


Parker) bullied me into the Forestry Committee when I came into the House so that the voice of Scotland could be heard. At that particular time there was not on our side an hon. Member on the Forestry Committee. I often feel that if the politicians who make the decisions regarding forestry had my experience of touring the forests and mingling with foresters and those who are interested in forestry, we might have a more settled policy on forests in Britain.

Mr. Thompson: I am constantly using the hon. Gentleman as an example of Glasgow Members of Parliament who are interested in the countryside and the rural areas. In my part of the world far too often people take the view that the inhabitants of Glasgow are a species apart who detest the rural areas and the countryside. May I express my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for the stand that he takes in relation to forestry?

Mr. Buchanan: I am grateful for those kind words. Since this is the injunction of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), and not wishing to bring any party controversy into the Committee, when the hon. Gentleman was talking about chains, I was going to say that our objection to the Scottish National Party is that, hankering after the chain as he does, he still wants to turn back the clock 300 years.
My constituency is an industrial desert. It is one of those constituencies that has been redeveloped, as has much of the city of Glasgow. Surely it is hardly beyond the wit of woodland owners, whether they be city councils or the Forestry Commission, to plant some trees in the midst of this urban wasteland.
Many of us in the city of Glasgow have to travel quite a distance to see a tree and to get to our public parks, of which there are many. The concrete jungles could be in many ways improved if an attempt was made to plant some trees in the middle of these urban constituencies. Whether the two-legged animals would allow them to exist is another matter, but I think that it should be attempted.
As the right hon. Member for Yeovil said, on the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment of the Forestry Commission

this is a rather unambitious Bill. I wish that it did much more. On my tours with the Forestry Committee, in addition to finding out that agriculture is probably our most valuable and efficient industry, I discovered that forestry plays a most important part in the development of agriculture. The Bill rightly gives aid to the landlords and tenants, and private foresters are given the incentive to plant and improve. It is hardly enough to compensate them for the devastation that was created by the capital transfer tax, but those of us who travel up the M1 by car or by the railway almost beside it must feel anxious about the idle acres that exist on that stretch and throughout the whole length and breadth of England and in parts of Scotland. Clearly, it is not good land—it would be developed if it were—but if there were a study to find the balance between forestry and agriculture, that land would indeed pay dividends.
It has been said this morning that we import £2 billion-worth of timber. As one of the noble Lords said in the debate in the House of Lords, we stick medals on people for exporting, and plaques appear in factories saying that the firm has an export award But the noble Lord was right when he said that we should award medals—or whatever the award may be—to people who save imports. Our agriculture and forestry industry is unique in that respect, and it is an aspect which should be encouraged to a greater extent than happens at present.
I, as a highlander once removed, want to make an appeal for the broad leaf trees that have suffered great devastation from Dutch elm disease. We have a duty to replace many of those trees—not necessarily elms, which, if the disease spreads, will again be subject to Dutch elm disease, but birches, beech, sycamores and oaks. Our forebears have left us a tremendous and a beautiful heritage of trees, and we should do something now about them.
It is interesting to note that the Forestry Commission did not take up £3 million of the money allocated to it. I believe that much of that £3 million could have been spent in financing private woodland owners for their planting of broad leaf trees.
If we are to find the balance between forestry and agriculture, and if we are to


cut our import bill and improve our forestry, we should not be as cheese-paring as we have been over the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said, we must look ahead 50 years. Forestry is not a short-term investment; it is a long-term investment for the people who come after us.
I want to say a word about the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James), on whose estate in Mull some beautiful trees have been planted. One of the tourist attractions in Mull is to visit the beautiful broad leaf trees on that estate. It is a 100-year investment, but it is protecting our heritage. I hope that this morning we shall be able to inspire the Government to do more to encourage forestry in this country.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Everything that has been said on both sides of the Committee this morning has illustrated that this is a very inadequate Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was totally right to give it the sort of welcome he did. Of course, one cannot object to it, but it is far too modest. It is a wood-mouse of a Bill. It is rather like planting a privet hedge as a windbreak. In forestry we face real crises and problems which have been pointed to and underlined by many hon. Members, not least hon. Gentlemen opposite. I wish that their knowledge and understanding of forestry were shared by more of their colleagues.

Mr. John Watkinson: And yours.

Mr. Cormack: Indeed, on our side of the House too, perhaps. But I think that we can claim a few more.
We need a charter for forests. We are talking of the most crucial of all our home-produced raw materials. This came out most noticeably in the speech of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). It is not just our landscape that is in danger and is being distorted before our eyes. The gaunt, lunar landscape of the South-West that is being produced by Dutch elm disease is but visible evidence of what is happening to forestry in this country. It is time for Governments to realise this. I welcome most warmly the statement by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) that we need a bipartisan approach. In this area,

perhaps more than in any other, we can see tangible results.
The staggering height of the import bill has been referred to many times. Realising how our European neighbours—even though they may re-import, as the hon. Gentleman indicated—do much better than we do, and realising the vast timber resources of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we ought to think more seriously about our native forestry. We should set a target. In the next 25 years we should aim at producing 25 per cent. of our own timber. Eight per cent. is a derisory amount.
The hon. Member for Dagenham suggested a 50-year plan, and I welcome that. But we should set ourselves a tangible target in figures. We should try to produce 25 per cent. of our own wood from our own resources. We should make a better job of implementing the policies in "Food from Our Own Resources" than we have in the two or three years since that document was produced.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley referred to derelict land. There are about 107,000 acres of derelict land in this country. Although some of that can be reclaimed for other purposes, a vast number of those acres could and should be used for forestry.
Most important of all, however—with all the help that we might give to the Forestry Commission and the tributes that have been paid from both sides of the Committee—is to realise that forestry can have no future in this country unless the individual farmer and landowner is encouraged to plant. He must have the same sense of confidence, stability and security as those people had who planted 200 years ago the great landscape parks that we enjoy today. The 50-year plan of the hon. Member for Dagenham would go far towards giving that sense of stability, security and confidence. That is what we should aim for.
I hope that the Minister, impressed as I hope he is by the sense of unanimity in this Committee, will go back and talk to his colleagues in the Cabinet and in his own Department, and say "This is not good enough. The Bill has received its Second Reading. It has been given a welcome, a fair passage and a fair wind. But the unanimous resolve of the Committee this morning was that it does not


gor far enough. It is unadventurous, unambitious and lacking in vision."
I believe that in the House of Commons there are sufficient people with the vision and the appreciation of the real issues. Unless we take the sort of action that the hon. Member for Dagenham has suggested—my right hon. Friend's welcome of that initiative is something that should again be reported upon—we shall not be producing 25 per cent. of wood from our own resources in 25 years, but we shall still be staggering along with 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. The landscape in many areas will have altered beyond recognition. We shall be the poorer as a nation, and our children who inherit it will never enjoy the riches that we have been able to appreciate.
Let this be a spur to further action and not just cause for self-congratulation on the Government Benches because they have produced one Bill that has received universal support.

11.46 a.m.

Mr. John Watkinson: May I apologise, Miss Fookes, to you and the Committee for arriving late this morning? I have the misfortune to live within the environs of British Rail's Southern Region, and it would be a gross understatement to describe the situation this morning as unmitigated chaos. Travelling is extremely difficult at present. I am sorry, therefore, that I missed the no doubt scintillating introduction on this Bill by the Minister. It is, as has been pointed out, a modest but welcome Bill.
Clause 1 refers to the extension of the right of the Forestry Commission to make grants in relation to the management of land. It is interesting that in this particular area of our economy—forestry—we actually have planning agreements in operation. This is a matter of dispute between the two parties in the industrial sphere, but it is a happy omen that at least in this area there is agreement between the private sector and the public sector that there can be a planned approach to forestry, however modest.
The interest which has been expressed in this Committee on the needs of the forestry industry is mirrored in Europe at present. Within the EEC a paper has been written on the subject, which is to be discussed by the Council and the Commission.

Likewise, in the Council of Europe my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and myself serve on a committee which will consider the subject of forestry in the wider context of Europe this year. So there is an awareness and an acceptance of the importance of this subject within Europe.
It is clear to us all from the debate today that there are three principal purposes of forestry. One is to provide the nation with a vital raw material—the economic argument. Of course, the crucial point about forestry is that it is one of the few raw materials which is actually renewable. This point has already been made, and I think it is worth emphasising.
The second purpose is the environmental purpose of forestry. The third is recreation. I shall deal briefly with each of those points.
Hon. Gentlemen have referred—and it is well known—to the extent to which we in this country rely on imports of our timber needs. We produce only 10 per cent. of what we consume. That is worrying in itself. The position of the United Kingdom in relation to forestry is made worse when we consider the situation in some other EEC countries. There has been reference to certain statistics in this context. I was sent an excellent information sheet by the British Paper and Board Industry Federation, called "Home Grown Timber", which sets out the facts of the case clearly and precisely.
As has been pointed out, the percentage of woodland area, both State-owned and private, in this country is only 8 per cent., whereas in Belgium it is 20 per cent., in France, 24 per cent., in Italy 26 per cent., and in Luxembourg 31 per cent. In West Germany it is 30 per cent. So it is clear, either for historical reasons or for a present-day perception, that European countries have at least accepted and realised the importance of forestry to their nations.
I listened with interest to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), whose interest in this subject goes back over many years, and to the response of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).
I wish that we could come up with a plan which the Treasury could accept on


the nod. Unfortunately things in the real world do not happen in this way. The Treasury is there to ask whether we are spending our money wisely as a nation and whether we are getting the right kind of return. I have no doubt that, as soon as the forestry argument comes up, the Treasury has recourse to Riccardo's argument and the law of comparative cost to justify the expansion of forests in this country at a time when timber can be grown six times as fast in tropical countries as it can here, when it can be transported from countries far away for less than it costs to produce here. I think that there is an international trade argument on that basis.
We also have to justify the fact that the return on forestry is limited. We must accept that 3 per cent. is the going rate, and if one takes away the subsidy it is 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. These are not the kind of figures that impress Ministers of any Government in charge of the Treasury.
One point which should be made about these figures, which were given to the Public Accounts Committee and which I have given to the Committee, is that this 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. after deduction of subsidy is a return in real terms. That is significant.
When we consider the two arguments, the law of comparative costs and the low level of return, how do we react? We must quite clearly say that the balance of payments question is very important and will become increasingly important. With an asset such as the forestry industry of this country which can utilise our land to grow timber in conditions that are most acceptable for that purpose, if we can save on imports we should do so.
All estimates point to the fact that the worldwide price of timber products will rise during the latter part of this century and the bill that we must pay will be that much greater. We must also ask ourselves what the effect would be if we and our European partners made ourselves utterly dependent upon the rest of the world and if the rest of the world began processing its own timber and we became totally reliant upon other parts of the world for our processed timber and materials.
There are arguments to suggest that we should maintain and expand our

forestry interests in Britain. We cannot deny the overall strategic importance of having some form of viable timber-producing industry in this country. As every hon. Member in the Committee has emphasised, it is a vital raw material and we ought to maintain and expand it.
It is also important that we maximise our present usage of timber in Britain. It is a fact that 45 per cent. of a tree is left on the ground after it has been felled. We must consider whether we are making sufficient use of the stumps and branches of our trees. We also need to ask whether we are recovering sufficient waste paper and decide whether we can save money there. Should we not also be exploring methods of extracting new chemicals from our timber? These are important considerations.
I do not wish to dwell on the environmental aspect. This is something which I think we all accept—the importance of forests from a landscaping viewpoint and as a means of preserving wild life in this country.
I wish to dwell for a few minutes on the recreational facilities of the forests. I believe this to be a very important aspect of forestry in this country, which tends to be under-estimated. However, the figures presented to the House last year showed that over 15 million people visited and enjoyed the forests of this country. The forests now are as significant a recreational area as our coastline. This must be developed.
I was disappointed to hear, when the matter came before the Public Accounts Committee, that the returns available to the Forestry Commission on the commercial recreational side have been only 2 per cent. compared with a target figure of 10 per cent. The Forestry Commission did indicate that there had been difficulties with pricing policy, but I consider these figures amazing in the context that in my constituency the camp site in the Forest of Dean is literally full up from the moment it is opened until the moment it is closed. Likewise, I am told that it is virtually impossible to get hold of forest cabins, such is the demand. I find it extraordinary that the returns made for that area are so low.
If it is deliberate forestry policy—I do not object to this—to ensure that the greatest number of people can get into


our forests for the smallest amount of money, so be it. But I am surprised, when the demand appears to be so great, that the returns the Forestry Commission is at present receiving are as low as they have been.
I return to the Bill itself, which refers in clause 1 to enabling the Forestry Commission to
make grants and loans to owners and lessees of land for and in connection with the use and management of the land for forestry purposes.
It is time that we in this country were prepared to look to Europe and the way in which Europe treats its so-called "private" forests. It is time that we said—this may already apply to a limited extent—that if private owners are to receive taxpayers' money to develop forests, those taxpayers should be entitled to have some form of access to those forest lands, unless there is good reason why this should not be the case.
It is desirable that we open our forests as widely as possible. I have already indicated that in my view there is a great demand by the urban population of this country to get into our forests, and I see no reason why private owners of forests who are subsidised by the State should not be prepared, unless there is good reason, to open up their forests for the benefit of the people of this country.

11.58 a.m.

Mr. Jasper More: In winding up this short debate on behalf of the Opposition, I am in the happy position of being able to say that I agree with almost everything that has been said this morning. I do not want to repeat what has been better said by others.
I reluctantly accept the conclusions of clause 2. Fortunately the word "kilometre" does not appear, which makes me slightly more favourably disposed towards the clause, although I suppose we must resign ourselves to the fact that we must turn over to these metric words.
I should like to add a few remarks on clause 1. Although much has been said about the Forestry Commission, the Bill, in fact, deals with the private forestry owner. I think we realise that if a large advance is to be made in forestry—I welcome everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr.

Parker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) with regard to the desirability of an all-party effort on this front—a large part of it must be done by the Forestry Commission, the principal effort must be made in the conifer section and the largest contribution must be made by Scotland.
Speaking as an English Member and with reference to the private sector, I think that there must be a second form of co-operation and not merely one between the political parties. There must be definite co-operation between agricultural interests and forestry. We have too many farmers—certainly in England; I do not know about Scotland—who take no interest in forestry. We see farms where not only no trees have been planted but all hedges have been removed. We see farms where, regrettably, the only contribution made by forestry is that trees come in useful in the place of posts for the purpose of fixing nails or barbed wire.
The National Farmers' Union, in one of its periodical productions recently, had an article by a farmer advocating as a matter of national policy definite co-operation between farmers and forestry with the object of getting trees planted on farms. It was a very welcome thing to read. The article pointed out the seriousness of the position, saying that we had to import every year £200 million-worth of timber products. I took occasion to write to the editor of the paper saying how much I applauded the article and that I hoped it was a matter of carelessness and not ignorance that the figure of £200 million had been given when the correct figure was £2,000 million. I also emphasised the importance of what he was saying.
If we are to get co-operation on this front, we really must have a change of heart among the farmers. I suggest to the Minister, as he is the Minister responsible for both agriculture and forestry, that he might consider whether we could not set some targets. Might it not be sensible to set a target that every farm in this country should have a minimum of 2 per cent. of its land planted with trees? Might it not be sensible to suggest that every farm in the hill farming category should have 5 per cent. of its land covered with trees? With proper advice as to the


siting and species to be planted, there are very few farms in this country which would not positively benefit agriculturally from that degree of forestry.
It is a very unwelcome suggestion to make to any farmer who does not happen to have forestry as a hobby that he should have to divert part of his energies to forestry. The fact should be faced that there must be a carrot. Whether there should also be a stick is a more difficult question. We should now be thinking in terms of farmers being paid some small retaining fee if they establish and annually manage properly more areas of planting on their farms.

Mr. Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that colleges of agriculture ought to play a role in educating the young farmers of the future in the benefits of forestry and in the practice of forestry, at least to some extent?

Mr. More: That would be most desirable. The difficulty about suggesting forestry to a farmer is that unless the farmer is very young indeed he knows that he himself will get virtually no financial return in his lifetime. But, if we could start on the younger generation, I would certainly agree with the hon. Member.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Spring-burn (Mr. Buchanan) is no longer in the room. I should have liked to suggest to him—and I suggest to the Minister—that the topic might be investigated of a much larger programme of tree planting in our cities. Trees are now being planted on a remarkably large scale in our new towns and even in cities such as Glasgow. Surely it would not be stupid, during a slum clearance scheme or something similar, to consider the establishment of a stated number of trees, preferably hardwoods. If this were done nationwide in all our cities. I believe it would make a remarkably large contribution to tree planting.
Whatever arrangement is to be made with farmers on planting—this has specific relevance to clause 1—it must be a very simple form of management grant or management agreement. If thoughts could be turned towards this subject in the Forestry Commission or the Ministry of Agriculture, I am sure

it would prove to be of benefit in the future. It gives me great pleasure to support the proposed measure.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. Bishop: I rise to speak a second time in order to answer some of the comments.
First, I welcome the support given by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and his hon. Friends, and, indeed, by hon. Members on both sides. This is a subject of great importance. It is not merely a matter of considering the best use of our resources, important though that may be—along with food production, forestry and fisheries have a very important part to play in adding to our rather limited national resources—but, of course, forestry these days has a leisure role to play as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) mentioned that about 15 million people have access to the forestry and leisure areas. I believe that the actual figure for last year was about 24 million and I am sure that the trend will continue. My hon. Friend will no doubt welcome that.
This has been a good debate because, although the scope of the Bill is limited, the Committee has—strictly within the rules of order—taken the opportunity to express its interest and concern.
We are fortunate to have on both sides hon. Members who have been identified with conservation and with this interest for many years.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) asked why we had not taken the opportunity to produce a much more ambitious Bill. I think that I should remind him of the point I made in my speech, that, following the recent advice of the Commissioners, who recently sought legal advice regarding the precise extent of their powers to give grants and loans under section 4 of the Forestry Act 1967, we were advised that the powers do not, as had been assumed, cover financial help towards the management of the forest as distinct from planting and replanting. I also made other points in my opening speech.
In other words, we are taking the earliest opportunity to deal with this particular area, which is limited but very important from the financial angle, and to


bring in changes with regard to metrication.

Mr. Cormack: Does the Minister agree that it would be a good thing to have a more ambitious Bill?

Mr. Bishop: Perhaps I may pursue the point, because I want to paint in the general background.
First, I endorse the tributes paid to the Forestry Commission and to all connected with the promotion of forestry and timber-growing in this country and with leisure pursuits. That tribute is well merited, not least for the very good annual reports which have been published—the last one only a few days ago—and for the many other publications put out by those authorities. The Ministry is in close touch with the Forestry Commission on all these points.
Hon. Members have expressed their concern about the relationship between forestry and the need for timber-growing in this country and our other resources. A number of reports abound. There has been the recent report by the Countryside Commission and there was the Strutt report on agriculture and the countryside—two reports which dealt with the complementary interests in the use of the countryside. Hon. Members have sometimes hinted at the conflicting interests. There should be no place for conflict, only for greater co-operation, to make sure that these resources are used in our mutual interests. The right hon. Member for Yeovil also made that point.
I was pleased to recall that on 5 July 1974 the Ministry put out a statement about grants. The statement began:
Timber production to feed our wood-processing industries continues to be recognised as the ultimate goal for woodlands managed under the [Basis III Dedication] scheme.
Later the statement said:
The Government share the concern expressed about the loss of small woods whose importance lies not only in their aesthetic, nature conservation and amenity value but also in the significant contribution they make towards the country's timber resources, a contribution capable of being enhanced through effective management.
Those comments will be supported on all sides of the Committee. Over the years all Governments have played their part in the promotion of timber as one of our great resources.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil referred to our heavy dependence on imported wood and wood products and the desirability of reducing this by a greater expansion of forestry in this country. Certainly any increase in the production of British timber will have a corresponding effect on the level of imports. Reference has been made to the extent to which we depend on imports. Higher production from the present forest estates over the next two decades should, despite an expected increase in demand, reduce our dependence on imported wood from the present 92 per cent. to about 86 per cent. This import-saving role of British forestry has understandably been advanced as a justification for a continuing and increased expansion of afforestation. The extent to which this will be feasible, however, will depend on a number of factors, not least of which is the amount of suitable land which will come on to the market and can be released from agriculture without undue detriment to food production. This was a theme of the two reports to which I referred. The review recently initiated by the Forestry Commissioners on "The Wood Production Outlook in Britain", which they have circulated as a consultative document, will serve as an important starting point for further consideration of this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) raised the point about the availability of land for forestry. I emphasise that forestry Ministers are very conscious of the fact that the amount of land being acquired for forestry is falling short of what is needed. The amount of land on offer has always fluctuated from one year to another, according to the various influences, and it is to be hoped that the present shortage of plantable land being offered for sale will be eased.
The Committee may be assured that the Government will keep a close watch on the position. This is one of the factors that will emerge from the studies suggested in the Commission's report "The Wood Production Outlook in Britain"—an important report which is now receiving consideration by the Ministry and by other organisations connected with the industry. It recognises that land and land use are major factors in future expansion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) also made a useful


contribution. He referred to the use of imperial measures. As I said in my opening remarks, metric measures have been largely used in the industry since 1971 and been widely accepted. My hon. Friend asked various questions about clause 1, to which I shall refer in a moment as other hon. Members also asked about definitions.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir John Gilmour) raised the question of Dutch elm disease. Financial help in this respect comes under two headings. First, there is help for felling, which is the responsibility of owners. Although the Government have expressed sympathy, they have consistently taken the view that owners must pay the costs themselves. Some local authorities have given help on a local basis, but there is no general assistance.
Regarding help for planting, which is very important, planting grants are available from the Forestry Commission within its normal allocation for grants. The Countryside Commission also gives assistance for planting, with special emphasis on areas where Dutch elm disease has made a major impact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley mentioned forestry in the European Economic Community. The Committee will be well aware that, in contrast to agriculture, the Community has no common forestry policy because forestry is not included in the Treaty of Rome. It does, however, receive consideration by the Community. A draft forestry directive has been under discussion for some time. Although it would encourage afforestation, it is seen as one of a number of measures designed rather to improve the structure of agriculture, and would be funded on that basis.
As the directive stands, the Government take the view that it is not well geared to our specific needs and circumstances. We are ready to consider on their merits any proposals affecting forestry, but the conditions under which forestry is practised in the Community are so diverse that it would seem preferable for our national policies to continue to be developed separately, taking account of any agreement by member States on the broader aims. One difficulty is that, as presently constituted, the directive will result in the United Kingdom paying

into the Community funds substantially more than it would get back. This fear also was expressed by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend also asked whether clause 1(2) was relevant to the problem of overseas supplies, particularly the removal of tropical timber. The Forestry Commission is charged with promoting the interests of forestry—the development of forestry and the production and supply of timber in Great Britain. The Commission is therefore much more aware of the relationship between imports and home production, and more recently produced the report to which I referred—"The Wood Production Outlook in Britain"—which looks at the situation to the middle of the next century.
On my hon. Friend's question about clause 1(1), I refer to the points I made in my opening speech about the need to clarify the goal. The clause will enable the Commissioners, with the approval of the Treasury, to provide financial aid for work connected with the use and management of the land for forestry purposes. It is wide enough to cover all the schemes for which grants and loans have been or are currently being provided, both for planting and for management. "Management", in this context, includes the preparation of ground for planting, the protection of plantations, weeding, fertilising, maintenance of fences and drains, and harvesting operations.

Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Forestry Commission can take, and actually does take, an interest in those areas of the world from which we shall have to obtain the balance of our timber requirements, and ensure that there is adequate knowledge, and adequate transfer of the knowledge which the Forestry Commission has amassed over the years, to ensure that there is adequate management of areas perhaps a long way from the United Kingdom but upon which the United Kingdom will depend for a long time?

Mr. Parker: Also bearing on that point, in areas such as Siberia, growth is very slow, so that, although there are enormous reserves there, they are not likely to be replaced very quickly when they are cut.

Mr. Bishop: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for those observations. I am


sure that they are important because we must look at timber and resources not only in the national but also in the international context.
The point that I was making about clause 1 was to assure the Committee that it is sufficiently wide to cover all the schemes for which grants are known to have been provided and are now being provided. It also brings in lessees of land as well as owners of land which are referred to in section 4 of the 1967 Act. It really helps the private forestry section in those respects.
With regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East about the clearing of snow from trees in Scotland being grant-aided under clause 1, I am advised that in principle any expenditure incurred in such snow-clearance measures could be covered by the clause, as it is a management expense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham referred to the application to Scotland in clause 2(2). There are no Acts relevant to Scotland that require amendment by clause 2(2). The only Acts covered by that subsection refer to the Forest of Dean and the New Forest.
Regarding the comments made by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), I note what he said about the other place, but he may have been referring to what are known as the backwoodsmen of that institution, if that has any relevance to this measure, Miss Fookes. I am not sure that that term, which is historic, necessarily still applies.
The hon. Member for Galloway mentioned the loan scheme proposals, which were also mentioned in another place during the passage of the Bill. Certainly the aim of the proposal, which is to bring more land into forestry by interesting owner-occupying farmers in planting projects, is to be commended. The Forestry Commission is studying the proposal and has not yet reached a firm view. It will clearly need to be satisfied that a scheme of this nature is not only administratively and legally watertight but that there are no alternative and simpler methods of achieving the same objective.
On comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan)—

Mr. Peyton: Before he leaves the matter raised by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), will the Minister react to the suggestion made by his hon. Friend that there might be some all-party approach and that the Government might actually make a useful and constructive initiative? That is the only point in which I am interested. I shall not go so far as to expect the Minister of State to take the risk of incurring Treasury wrath by endorsing the criticisms which have been made of that awful Department. I hope that at least he will not wholly ignore the comment made by his hon. Friend or my reaction to it. So far his speech has been very disappointing.

Mr. Bishop: I am dealing with the questions raised by hon. Members and I thought that they wanted some replies.

Mr. Peyton: The Minister glossed over the matter.

Mr. Bishop: I have in mind the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Yeovil and by my hon. Friend. I had intended dealing with it a little lataer. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall not overlook it. If hon. Members want replies to their questions, some of which are very important, I think I should be able to give some information.
It is true that broad leaf woods form only 7 per cent. of the Commission's total area of plantations, but this is a reflection of the emphasis placed on the Commission's objectives by successive Governments, including the Conservative Government in the past, against a background that some 96 per cent. of timber used in Britain is in the form of softwoods. There has been criticism by hon. Members on both sides about the general financial implications of timber. That is a very important point.
I have no need to remind the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Minister has consistently said that we are at all times pressing upon the Treasury and indeed, other Ministers the consequences of financial or taxation policy both on agriculture and on forestry. I remind hon. Members that in discussions on the Finance Bill in 1976 Ministers decided, in the light of representations made, that there should be a reassessment of the effects of Government policies on private


forestry and, indeed, on agriculture in general. I was very pleased last year, going around the country to agricultural shows and meeting farmers' unions, to be asked to convey thanks to the Ministry and to the Government for the changes made with regard to agriculture in the Finance Act 1978. It is true, of course, that we have carried out very much the same kind of review of the consequences of other policies on forestry, and changes were made in the Finance Act 1977.
Following discussions on the Finance Bill 1976, on 13 July 1976 we set up an interdepartmental review to consider the whole question, including looking at policies, taxation grants and amenity. The Government's aim was to finish the review in time for action to be taken in the next Finance Bill. A review group was then set up, under Treasury chairmanship and comprising representatives of the Forestry Commission and other departments concerned, whose terms of reference included review of taxation, grant arrangements for private forestry and so on, to report by the end of 1976. That was a commendable initiative on the Government's part in looking at ways in which private forestry, and indeed forestry generally, could be given a greater momentum.
The new grant-aid and tax measures were announced by the Minister of State. Treasury in March 1977. I draw hon. Members' attention to the annual report of the Forestry Commission which mentions these points. As a matter of interest, I note that the current issue of The Field says that
Credit for getting the present government to reverse that, and their own initial attitudes, is due not only to private forestry's sound and persistent arguments. It goes to the Government and Civil Service for setting up the Interdepartmental Review of two years ago.
I mention that because the Civil Service and Ministers have been under some attack on this point.
The editorial in The Field also says:
The past year has been an encouraging one for foresters. Fiscal changes which accompanied it included increased planting grants, reintroduction of a small woodland scheme and amendments to taxes. They have encouragd a more positive and confident attitude among private foresters for the first time"—
I do not want to be political here, but I must read the full quotation—
since the Conservative Government made such a nonsense of the issue in 1972.

I am not making a political point. I am merely saying that that journal, which is not always identified with our line of thinking, has put the situation in perspective.

Mr. Cormack: What about quoting Tribune?

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that seated interventions are deplored by this particular Chairman.

Mr. Bishop: I have no doubt that all Governments could be criticised for what they have or have not done, and I can understand the feeling of the Committee that we would want to go much further.
With regard to the aspect which I raised earlier, the integration of forestry and farming, is a very important point and one wants to avoid any sense of conflict here. I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), who wound up on behalf of the Opposition, about the potential for greater integration between forestry and agriculture. I can tell him that the Government accept fully the desirability of achieving the most effective interrelationship between those two major users of our rural land and we should be willing to consider any proposals to promote schemes to that end, whether in the private or in the public sector. A working group is being set up under the chairmanship of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, and it will include private sector interest groups. The Forestry Commission is to explore more means of encouraging planting by owner-occupiers and farmers and will examine the economics of small-scale planting, with particular reference to the benefits of woodlands to agriculture.
This has been an interesting debate and we are grateful to you, Miss Fookes, for your tolerance. In seeking to clarify the law, we are anxious that all the help contained in the grants and loans which have been available in the past shall continue, possibly to a much wider extent. Forestry is a subject which has no party boundaries. There is a great anxiety by all hon. Members to make much greater progress. When some of the reports to which I have referred today are considered, I hope that the views of hon. Members on all sides of the House will be made available so that we may be able to agree on policies


which are in the interests of the countryside and so that we may maximise this very limited but important national resource.

Mr. Parker: Will the Minister convey to his right hon. Friend the unanimous feeling of the Committee that there should be discussions between the parties to try to agree a long-term programme on policy?

Mr. Bishop: I note that suggestion because, as in agriculture, there needs to be confidence in the future. That

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Fookes, Miss Janet (Chairman)
More, Mr. Jasper


Bishop, Mr.
Parker, Mr.


Buchanan, Mr.
Peyton, Mr.


Cormack, Mr.
Roderick, Mr.


Gilmour, Sir John
Stradling Thomas, Mr. John


Hardy, Mr.
Thompson, Mr.


Jopling, Mr.
Watkinson, Mr.


Lewis, Mr. Ron

confidence depends a great deal on long-term planning and continuity, regardless of any changes.

With those remarks, I trust that the Committee will recommend a Second Reading for the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Forestry Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.—[Mr. Bishop.]

Committee rose at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.